Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Reddrop [1994] QSC 104

~ 'S"c..Gj7'/IO ~I State Reporting Bureau 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.) ffBiiSED COf.-'ir=S 12-SUED lI St"+"' F;-::·r· ~-~ •nro r::;, '''"'::<U : \ Date~;~ /--:~· .. / _,~-:;- \ y. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION DOWSETT J No 126 of 1991 AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED Plaintiff and LORETTA VIOLET REDDROP (ALSO KNOWN AS LORETTA VIOLET STARLING) CAIRNS .. DATE 15/02/94 ORDER I.... 1 Defendant I 4th Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Telephone: (07) 227 4360. Facsimile: (07) 227 5532 'I r: _; '>;C: ~ :::7"':'~--,-·:·:~~'~'":'~'-~::-~:-- .. -:--:-:-:-- ·-·-·-c·---·-- ---- --- ---·-::· - .....,.. ------·- -----· ._.. . ....... -·· .......... -·----·-------------·- .... .. . .. . ........ . -- 1 of 3 -- ------------------------- 1-. \, 150294 HIS HONOUR: This is an application to transfer an action commenced in the Circuit Court at Cairns to the Supreme Court of Victoria. The claim, which was commenced by writ of summons issued on the 15th of November, 1991 is for recovery of possession or delivery of possession of land pursuant to 10 the terms of a mortgage given by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In May of 1992, the defendant delivered an amended defence and counter claim alleging misconduct of what I might call the 20 "usual kind" against bank officers related to the circumstances in which the mortgage was granted. The matter has proceeded at a somewhat leisurely pace thereafter, I am told as a result of settlement negotiations, but now, with the matter almost ready for trial, the plaintiff seeks to transfer 30 it to Victoria. Although a number of other reasons for this application were advanced, the only one which I find to have any significant persuasive value is that the transaction ·having been effected in Victoria, three or perhaps more witnesses who will be called by the bank, are in Victoria. 40 This is a matter of some weighty significance in the balancing act which has to be carried out in order to determine applications of this kind. It is given additional weight by the fact that the defendant presently lives at the Gold Coast rather than in Cairns, although she expects to be in Cairns so later in the year. The plaintiff has offered to advance to her the money necessary for her to fly to Melbourne for the trial with the 60 ORDER 2 . ----·- -- 2 of 3 -- ------~-~--~~--------- --------- 1 150294 intention that in the event that the plaintiff is successful in the action, those moneys be recoverable as costs of the action. It seems to me, though that there are other countervailing considerations. Firstly, the action was commenced here by the plaintiff, and secondly, the defendant wishes to continue the action in Cairns. The action is, as I say, almost ready for trial and, with the best will in the world, it is likely, I would think, that if the matter goes to Victoria, there will be additional delay incurred just as a result of the difficulties inevitably associated with so moving an action. There are other considerations which I consider relevant, including policy considerations relating to the decentralisation of the administration of justice. I can really see no reason why the matter can't be appropriately disposed of here and, although it might be marginally more expensive, I think that the parties having initially chosen this jurisdiction and the matter being almost ready for trial, it is better that it stay where it is. I will therefore refuse the application. I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the application. ORDER 3 10 20 30 40 I 50 60 -- 3 of 3 --