Waugh v CSL Ltd [2000] VSC 117

Supreme Court of Victoria|2000-03-28|Before: BEACH, J.

This is an application by the plaintiff, Carol Elizabeth Waugh, to cross-vest the proceeding to the State of Western Australia pursuant to the provisions of s.5(2)(iii) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Vic.)

I have considered the merits of the application since the matter was debated before me on Thursday last and have concluded that it is not in the interests of justice that such an order be made in the proceeding. I say that for the following reasons:

1. The proceeding was filed in this court by the solicitors for the plaintiff on 6 June 1994, that is, almost six years ago. Nothing of significance has changed over that period of time so far as the circumstances giving rise to the plaintiff's cause of action are concerned. The situation in that regard remains the same today as it was then.

2. The first defendant, C.S.L. Limited, is situated in Victoria, as is its manufacturing plant. All the defendants' documentary material relating to Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and its witnesses are located in Victoria.

3. The Commonwealth Department of Health and Care, which was responsible for the manufacture of hormones from pituitary glands, the distribution of the hormones and the treatment of patients, is in the Australian Capital Territory.

4. Based on the defendants' solicitors' experience in similar cases of recent years, discovery will involve some 50,000 documents located in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. In addition, discovery will have to be given of approximately 250 folders of documents which were generated by the Allars Inquiry into the disease.

5. Counsel and solicitors who have been involved in the preparation of the defendants' defence to claims of this nature since 1993 are resident in Victoria.

6. It should be unnecessary for the plaintiff's witnesses to travel to Victoria to give evidence. They should be able to give their evidence by video-link.

7. Whilst the plaintiff may have financial difficulty in further pursuing this claim in Victoria, or in coming to Victoria to attend the trial of the proceeding, I am not satisfied that those facts outweigh the other matters to which I have adverted.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (9 paragraphs)

Parties