FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tait v P.T. Ltd as Trustee of the Scentre Tuggerah Trust (No 2) [2015] FCA 1062
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
Applicant | |
AND: | P.T. LTD ACN 004 454 666 AS TRUSTEE OF THE SCENTRE TUGGERAH TRUST Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The proceeding be transferred to the New South Wales District Registry of this Court pursuant to s 48 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | SAD 271 of 2015 |
BETWEEN: | ROBERT GRAHAME TAIT Applicant |
AND: | P.T. LTD ACN 004 454 666 AS TRUSTEE OF THE SCENTRE TUGGERAH TRUST Respondent |
JUDGE: | BESANKO J |
DATE: | 30 September 2015 |
PLACE: | ADELAIDE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application by the respondent for an order that the proceeding be transferred to the New South Wales District Registry of the Court. The Court’s power to order that a proceeding be transferred to another place is contained in s 48 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (see also r 2.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and the definitions of proper place and proper Registry in the Dictionary).
2 The proceeding was commenced by originating application on 20 August 2015. On 26 August 2015, I granted injunctions in favour of the applicant and made other orders. On 11 September 2015, I published my reasons for granting the injunctions (Tait v P.T. Ltd as Trustee of the Scentre Tuggerah Trust [2015] FCA 1015).
3 The respondent’s application in which it seeks an order for the transfer of the proceeding to the New South Wales District Registry was issued on 21 August 2015. The application is supported by an affidavit of Mr Martin John Deutsch sworn on 21 August 2015. Mr Deutsch is a partner of Colin Biggers & Paisley solicitors. That firm acts for the respondent. In his affidavit, Mr Deutsch states that the premises which are the subject of the dispute are located in New South Wales and that the lease over the premises is registered in New South Wales. The respondent is located in New South Wales. The applicant’s private address is an address in New South Wales. Mr Deutsch states that he believes that the persons who are likely to provide evidence on behalf of the respondent reside in New South Wales, and that relevant documents and records of the respondent are located in New South Wales.
4 When the matter came on for directions on 11 September 2015, the applicant indicated that he did not wish to put on any evidence in opposition to the application for transfer and that he considered that it was a matter for the Court. I indicated that I considered that the applicant should express an attitude bearing in mind that he had issued a proceeding in this Registry only a matter of weeks beforehand. The applicant told me that when the proceeding was commenced it was likely that there would be other applicants but this had not eventuated. The applicant said that he consented to the transfer of the proceeding.
5 The authorities which address s 48 are well-known. It is sufficient for me to refer to National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd and Others v Sentury Corporation and Another (1988) 19 FCR 155; (1988) 83 ALR 434, and Wepar Nominees Pty Ltd v Schofield [2013] FCA 920. The parties agree that it is an appropriate case for transfer, and in my opinion, the proceeding should be transferred to the New South Wales District Registry. I will make an order accordingly.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko. |
Associate:
