River Gum Homes Pty Ltd v Meridian Pty Ltd

[2010] QCA 293

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Courts and judges generally
3. › Concurrent jurisdiction of different courts
4. › Transfer of proceedings under cross-vesting legislation
5. › Competence of appeal
6. › Whether appeal against refusal of stay is in substance an appeal against refusal of transfer
7. › Whether appeal barred by s 13(a)
8. › Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Qld), s 13(a)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Courts and judges generally
3. › Concurrent jurisdiction of different courts
4. › Transfer of proceedings under cross-vesting legislation
5. › Stay of proceedings versus transfer
6. › Whether stay available where cross-vesting legislation engaged
7. › Whether stay only available where proceedings frivolous, vexatious, oppressive or abuse of process
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Courts and judges generally
3. › Concurrent jurisdiction of different courts
4. › Transfer of proceedings under cross-vesting legislation
5. › Where appropriate and in interests of justice
6. › Exclusive jurisdiction clause
7. › Weight to be given to exclusive jurisdiction clause under cross-vesting legislation
8. › Whether preponderance of witnesses in forum state outweighs exclusive jurisdiction clause
9. › Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Qld), s 5(2)

Quick Take

Where cross-vesting legislation is engaged, a party seeking to have proceedings heard in another Australian jurisdiction must apply for transfer, not a stay; an appeal against refusal of such an application is barred by s 13(a) regardless of whether the application was also framed as a stay application. An exclusive jurisdiction clause is a relevant but not determinative factor under s 5(2), and may be outweighed by the preponderance of witnesses in the forum state.