Robinson v State of Victoria [2026] NSWSC 245 (Link to Caselaw).
With thanks to Jackson Gilbert for drawing attention to this decision, which arises is the context of an abuse claim but appears to have wider application.
The proceedings (issued in the Supreme Court of NSW) arose from allegations by the plaintiff that he was sexually abused by a teacher at a primary school in Victoria between 1982 and 1985, whilst the plaintiff was a student at the school. The plaintiff was between the ages of 7 and 8 years at the time of the alleged abuse.
The defendant applied for transfer of the proceedings to Victoria.
The plaintiff was born and educated in Victoria but now resided in New South Wales. This was not one of those cases where the preponderance of connecting factors clearly points towards one state jurisdiction as opposed to the other. There were competing factors, some of which favoured the transfer to Victoria and others which favour leaving the proceedings in New South Wales. Although, as a general rule, weight is to be given to the place where the tort occurred, in the circumstances of this case, the place of the tort and the place where the damages have been incurred were not the same. Although the place where parties live is to be taken into account, it is also relevant that one of the parties, being the State of Victoria, is not an individual citizen.
The court held at [33]:
Accordingly, no matter where the proceedings are held, the defendant can only act, appear or give evidence through its servants and agents. The plaintiff, on the other hand, as an individual, must physically relocate from his home in suburban Newcastle to wherever the proceedings are held. I am satisfied at the present time that the inconvenience and expense of him travelling to Court in Sydney is significantly less than the inconvenience and expense of requiring him, his barristers and solicitor, his lay witnesses and his expert witnesses to travel to the Supreme Court of Victoria. In that regard, I also take into account the significant imbalance in resources between the State of Victoria and the plaintiff as an individual. That imbalance in resources is relevant because the financial inconvenience to the defendant in participating in proceedings in New South Wales is relatively insignificant when compared to the financial inconvenience to the individual plaintiff in having to conduct proceedings outside his home state.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2507]