CMC Cairns Pty Ltd v Macrossan & Lennon (No 1) [2005] QSC 295

State Reporting Bureau Q5C Queensland Government Department of Justice and Attorney-General a Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority )f the Director, State Reporting Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION JONES J No 67 of 2002 CMC CAIRNS PTY LTD and TIM MACROSSAN and PAULA LENNON CAIRNS .. DATE 03/10/2005 JUDGMENT REVISED COPIES ISSUED State Reporting Bureau Date: 6 October, 2005 Plaintiff Defendants ARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal fence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for eir protection under.the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those itegories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings. 1 Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Telephone: (07) 3247 4360 Fax: (07) 3247 5532 -- 1 of 3 -- 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the defendant seeking a transfer of the further hearing of applications and the action from Cairns to Brisbane. The plaintiff, who brings the action, appears to have its business based in Cairns, its lawyers are in Cairns, and the plaintiff wishes to maintain the conduct of the action in Cairns. In support of the application for transfer to Brisbane Mr Ryall of counsel on behalf of the defendants identifies three matters upon which the transfer should be considered. The 20 first of these is that the defendants' lawyers are in Brisbane. That fact is matched by the fact that the plaintiff's lawyers are in Cairns. The second point is that it being a strike-out application 30 because there has been no step taken in the action for two years means that the plaintiff will come to Court seeking an indulgence and an extension of time, and will most likely therefore be ordered to pay costs if successful. Whilst that is offered out of concern of the interests of the plaintiff, 40 the plaintiff apparently does not see it that way and is prepared to take whatever chances there are in relation to costs in Cairns, at least I so infer by the fact that the application is opposed. 50 The third point was that there is a history of an agreement on an earlier occasion when an application within this action was to be heard, the parties agreed that it could be heard and determined in Brisbane. Well, again, this is not for the 03102005 Tll/LET M/T CNS1-2/2005 (Jones J) 2 JUDGMENT 60 -- 2 of 3 -- Court to inquire into the convenience of the parties which led to that decision being made. The issue now is whether in this application there are good grounds, compelling reasons pursuant to section 289 of Supreme Court Act 1995 for the matter to be transferred from the Cairns registry to the Brisbane registry. I have read the affidavit of Mr Greeley relied upon. I do not, in that affidavit, see any compelling reasons for a transfer of this particular matter. The application is refused. 03102005 Tll/LET M/T CNS1-2/2005 (Jones J) HIS HONOUR: I will order that the applicant on this application pay the costs of the respondent to the application's cost to be assessed on the standard basis. HIS HONOUR: The hearing of the application to strike out the plaintiff's claim will be adjourned to the 7th of November 2005 with costs of that application being reserved. 1 10 20 30 40 50 3 JUDGMENT 60 -- 3 of 3 --