FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Papua New Guinea Banking Corp v “Spartan” [1999] FCA 1829

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for transfer of proceedings to Queensland District Registry of the Federal Court – balance of convenience – ends of justice – efficient administration of the Court – location of vessel in Queensland – related issues in another action brought in the Queensland Registry

Federal Court Rules O 19 r 1(f)

National Mutual Holdings Pty Limited v The Sentry Corporation (1988) 19 FCR 155 applied

PAPUA NEW GUINEA BANKING CORPORATION v

SHIP “SPARTAN” and NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD

N 824 OF 1999

TAMBERLIN J

SYDNEY

15 DECEMBER 1999

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.         The action herein and action number Q 235 of 1999 between National Australia Bank Limited and MV “Spartan” filed in the Queensland District Registry on 27 September 1999 be tried at the same time.

2.         The action herein be transferred to the Queensland District Registry at Brisbane.

3.         Costs be reserved.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     This is an application by notice of motion filed on 7 December 1999 by the National Australian Bank, seeking an order that this action, which was brought in the New South Wales Registry, be transferred to the Queensland District Registry in Brisbane to be tried at the same time as the action between National Australia Bank and MV “Spartan” (Q 235 of 1999) filed in Queensland on 27 September 1999.

2                     I am informed by counsel that the matter is listed for directions before Kiefel J in the Queensland Registry this Friday.  The only question which arises in this application, which is brought under O 10 r 1(f) of the Federal Court Rules, is as to the balance of convenience.  The relevant principles are set out in the decision of the Court in National Mutual Holdings Pty Limited v The Sentry Corporation (1988) 19 FCR 155, where the Court stated that it would consider the balance of convenience having regard to the interest of the parties, the ends of justice in the determination of the issues and the efficient administration of the Court. 

3                     The latter concept is one of considerable importance in this matter because the vessel has been arrested and is located in Queensland.  It would be manifestly easier for the administration of the custody entrusted to the Admiralty Marshal to be carried out from the Brisbane Registry rather than the New South Wales Registry.

4                     An additional consideration which I think is important apart from the consideration of the location of the vessel, is the consideration that the two matters obviously raise related issues and it is appropriate that they should be tried together.  In these circumstances, the efficient administration of the proceedings in order to serve the ends of justice warrant that both matters should be case handled by a single judge.

5                     In the present case I think that the appropriate judge to handle both matters is the Queensland Judge, with whom the other matter is presently placed.  The two matters should travel together and I think it is appropriate that they be mentioned and managed together.  This does not of course necessarily mean that evidence in one case will be evidence in the other.  That is an issue for determination by the Judge handling the proceedings.

6                     At this stage of the proceeding it is not possible to tell with any degree of certainty what the convenience of witnesses is and there are competing considerations in this respect.  There are a number of other related matters which have been canvassed fully in discussion and submission from the parties, however on balance I consider that the location of the vessel and the interest of having a single judge handle the matter are of controlling importance in this case, and override the cumulative weight of the other considerations.

7                     Accordingly I grant the motion and I order that the action brought in this Registry, and action number Q 235 of 1999 National Australia Bank Ltd v Ship MV Spartan filed in the Queensland District Registry on 27 September 1999, should be tried at the same time, and that this action should be transferred to the Queensland District Registry at Brisbane.  I think it is appropriate that costs should be reserved.  I do not think there are any other orders which immediately spring to mind as being appropriate.

Associate:                                                         Date:                25 January 2000