Bryant v Tropical Reef Shipyard Pty Ltd [2000] QSC 202

2) '6'1546 • State Reporting 5( CXJ/JOJ Bureau --L,t.l,~ TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION JONES J No 38 of 2000 JEFFREY WILLIAM BRYANT and TROPICAL REEF SHIPYARD PTY LTD ACN 010 439 808 CAIRNS .. DATE 17/04/2000 JUDGMENT •Ith Floo1·, The Law Courts, Ceoq.\e Sln·cf, Bri:;11;1111~, Q ..t()()() Applicant Respondent -- 1 of 3 -- 17042000 D.1 T9/VC M/T CNS303/99 (Jones J) HIS HONOUR: This is an application for an action commenced in the District Court to be remitted to the Supreme Court. The application is made pursuant to section 82 of the District Court Act which requires the Judge to order a transfer on the ground that there is reasonable ground for supposing that the relief or remedy sought is not available in the District Court. The relief sought in the District. Court is damages for personal injury. The respondent to this application concedes that on one view of the material before me the likely assessment of damages could exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court. Accordingly, it is not necessary for me to examine in detail, that evidence. Rather, the respondent opposes the remitter on the basis that it is prepared to agree to an unlimited jurisdiction in the District Court to assess damages. The applicant says that that only gives jurisdiction to the District Court if it consents to such an increase. And that is provided for by section 72 of the District Court Act. The case of Eyres v. Butt 1986, 2 Queensland Reports, 243, decision of the Full Court of Queensland, was .Cited as authority for this proposition. The fact that the defendant makes the offer to place no monetary limit on the District Court's assessment of damages, is a fact in which I could take into account in the exercise of my discretion as to whether the remedy sought is or is not available in the District Court. 2 JUDGMENT 10 20, I 30 40 50 60 -- 2 of 3 -- ~1012000 D.1 T9/VC M/T CNS303/99 (Jones J) I would expect that my exercise of discretion in such a way would lead to a forced consent by the plaintiff to accept the defendant's offer to increase their jurisdiction. That would be a forced consent rather than a true consent. The plaintiff is entitled to seek its relief in the Court that has jurisdiction to provide the relief. If, in the end result, the amount awarded is less than the jurisdictional limit of the District Court, then clearly a question of costs unfavourable to the plaintiff, is likely to be made. I would expect also, that on the question of costs, it could be argued that costs should not be assessed on the Supreme Court given the offer made by the defendant in an application such as this. In the end result the discretion of the Court which touches on the matter which is really raised in this application, the question of costs, can be dealt with at the later time. I therefore make order in terms of the application that District Court plaint number D15 of 1998 be removed to the Supreme Court of Queensland, Cairns Central Registry. I order that the costs of the action incurred in the District 10 20 30 40 Court, be costs in the cause. And I order that the costs of 50 and incidental to this application be reserved to the trial Judge. 60 3 JUDGMENT -- 3 of 3 --