Profinance Limited v Captain B Copland & Associates Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 349 (4 April 2003)

Last Updated: 17 April 2003

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Profinance Limited v Captain B Copland & Associates Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 349

PROFINANCE LIMITED v CAPTAIN B COPLAND & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ACN 010 491 639

V 757 OF 2002

RYAN J

4 APRIL 2003

MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 757 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	PROFINANCE LIMITED Applicant
AND:	CAPTAIN B COPLAND & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ACN 010 491 639 Respondent
JUDGE:	RYAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 APRIL 2003
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The proceedings be transferred to the Queensland Registry of the Court;

2. Costs of the motion on notice filed on 27 February 2003 and of this day be reserved.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 757 of 2002

BETWEEN:	PROFINANCE LIMITED Applicant
AND:	CAPTAIN B COPLAND & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ACN 010 491 639 Respondent

JUDGE:	RYAN J
DATE:	4 APRIL 2003
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 The connections which this application has to the State of Queensland compared with those which is has to Victoria are so much stronger in my view as to compel the conclusion that the case can more suitably be conducted in Brisbane. It may be true, as Ms Hannon for the applicant has submitted, that some of the potential witnesses listed by the solicitor for the respondent will not ultimately be required to give evidence. However, none of the potential witnesses on either side resides in Melbourne.

2 It remains possible, as Ms Hannon pointed out, to take evidence in a place other than where the proper registry is located or by videoconferencing facility. However, arrangements to accommodate that can be made as efficaciously by a Judge entrusted with the matter in Brisbane as they can be in Melbourne. I have not been unmindful of the fact that some considerable interlocutory steps have already taken place in Melbourne. Nevertheless, I am bound to have regard to the injunction of a Full Court of this Court in National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v Sentry Corporation (1988) 19 FCR 155, that a matter to be taken into account on applications of this kind is the efficient administration of the Court.

3 I consider that the matter should be transferred to Brisbane. I say that especially in light of the relatively recent change of practice under which each matter filed in the Court is assigned to the individual docket of a particular Judge. It occurs to me that there may be real advantages and economies of time if the docket Judge in the Brisbane Registry who will, presumably, conduct the trial of the application is ascertained at an early date and can give the remaining interlocutory directions as that Judge sees appropriate.

4 For these reasons I consider that an order should be made that the matter be transferred to the Brisbane Registry of the Court. I am not disposed to find that the issuing of the application out of the Victoria District Registry in Melbourne was capricious. I shall simply order that the costs of the motion and of this day be reserved. I take it, in view of the intimation that has been given in the course of the hearing, that there is no need now to make a specific order for discovery.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Ryan.

Associate:

Dated: 4 April 2003

Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms L J Hannon
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Russell Kennedy
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr I G Waller
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	4 April 2003
Date of Judgment:	4 April 2003