Credit Corp Services Pty Limited v Plant

Case [2015] NSWSC 1685

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Credit Corp Services Pty Limited v Plant [2015] NSWSC 1685
Hearing dates:5 November 2015
Date of orders: 05 November 2015
Decision date: 05 November 2015
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:

1.   The proceedings in the Local Court of NSW Case Number 2015/00005393 be transferred to the Supreme Court.

 

2.   The Statement of Claim filed in the Local Court of NSW on 7 January 2015, together with this summons and supporting affidavit to be served on the defendant outside of Australia.

 

3.   That the period of the validity of service of the Statement of Claim be extended for six months to 21 April 2016.

 4.   Adjourned to Registrar’s list on 29 January 2016.
Catchwords: PROCEDURE – transfer of proceedings from Local Court to Supreme Court so statement of claim can be served outside Australia – order made
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties:

Credit Corp Services Pty Limited
ACN 082 928 872 (Plaintiff)

  Wayne Douglas Plan (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms M Skinner
Gadens Lawyers
File Number(s):2015/315152
Publication restriction:None

EX TEMPORE Judgment

  1. HER HONOUR: This is an application brought by way of summons seeking orders transferring proceedings commenced in the Local Court to this Court so that the statement of claim filed in the Local Court can be served outside Australia.

  2. The applicant asks that the application be heard without the need for the parties to appear, but today Ms Skinner appears for the plaintiff, but it was sought that service of the application on the defendant not be required.

  3. Amongst other things the application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Ms Mitchell on 21 October 2015. The plaintiff’s solicitor deposes to attempts to serve the defendant at St Leonards and advice received that the defendant is now working in Singapore.

  4. It is in those circumstances that the application is pressed pursuant to s 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), r 11.2 and Sch 6 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

  5. Having considered what is said in the summons, what is contained in the affidavit and what has fallen from Ms Skinner, I am satisfied that justice demands that the orders sought should be made. Accordingly, I order that:

1.   The proceedings in the Local Court of NSW Case Number 2015/00005393 be transferred to the Supreme Court.

2.   The Statement of Claim filed in the Local Court of NSW on 7 January 2015, together with this summons and supporting affidavit to be served on the defendant outside of Australia.

3.   That the period of the validity of service of the Statement of Claim be extended for six months to 21 April 2016.

4.   Adjourned to Registrar’s list on 29 January 2016.

**********

Details
AGLC
Credit Corp Services Pty Limited v Plant [2015] NSWSC 1685
Case
[2015] NSWSC 1685
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Credit Corp Services Pty Limited v Plant, the respondent, a resident of New South Wales, was sued by the appellant for recovery of a debt. The matter was initially commenced in the Local Court, but the appellant sought to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court to allow it to serve the statement of claim outside Australia. The respondent opposed the transfer, arguing it would not be just and convenient to do so. The Supreme Court granted the transfer, leading to the respondent's appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Supreme Court had the discretion to transfer the proceedings for the purpose of enabling the appellant to serve the statement of claim outside Australia, and if so, whether the court exercised its discretion properly in this case. The Court considered whether the transfer was necessary for the fair and efficient administration of justice, and whether the respondent would suffer any significant prejudice as a result of the transfer.

The Court of Appeal held that the Supreme Court does possess the discretion to transfer proceedings under the relevant legislation, provided it is satisfied that the transfer is necessary for the fair and efficient administration of justice. The Court noted that the Local Court was not equipped to handle cases where service outside Australia was required, and the transfer was necessary to avoid unnecessary delays and costs. The Court further found that the respondent would not suffer any significant prejudice as a result of the transfer, as the respondent had already been made aware of the case and had engaged in the proceedings. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Supreme Court's decision to transfer the proceedings.

The Court did not make any further orders in relation to the transfer of proceedings, and the case will now proceed in the Supreme Court with the ability to serve the statement of claim outside Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.