The Court refused to transfer proceedings from NSW to Victoria under s 5(2)(b)(iii) of the Cross-vesting Act, finding on the facts that the balance of convenience did not favour transfer where the plaintiff resided in NSW, his treatment providers and lay witnesses were in NSW, and there was a significant resource imbalance between the individual plaintiff and the State of Victoria. The Court held the application was premature given that witness statements had not yet been served and the parameters of factual dispute were unknown, but left open the possibility of a further transfer application after evidence was served. The applicability of Victorian law was acknowledged but held not to be a decisive factor where it could be properly applied by the NSW court.
The full text is available to signed-in members.