Legal Research
Cases
A Goninan & Co v Atlas Steels

A Goninan & Co v Atlas Steels

Link copied

Case Copied 24 October 2003 42 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: A Goninan & Co v Atlas Steels [2003] NSWSC 956

HEARING DATE(S): 8 October 2003, and written submissions to 23 October 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 October 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

DECISION: Order for consolidation of proceedings

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - consolidation of proceedings - when appropriate JURISDICTION OF COURTS - cross-vesting of proceeding from one State Supreme Court to another - federal matter with accrued jurisdiction - whether Court is required to apply law of transferring State

LEGISLATION CITED: Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW & Vic), ss 4, 9, 11
Supreme Court Rules, Pt 31 r 7

CASES CITED: Abrook v Paterson (1995) 58 FCR 293
Amos v Chadwick (1887) 4 Ch D 869
Bellview Investments Pty Ltd v Deans Investment Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of Northern Territory, unreported, 18 December 1997)
Bolwell Fibreglass Pty Ltd v Foley [1984] VR 97
Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 18 FCR 212
Cameron v McBain [1948] VLR 245
Carnie v Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd (1996) 38 NSWLR 465
David Syme & Co Ltd v Grey (1992) 38 FCR 303
Felton v Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367
Fong Consultants Pty Ltd v Ati Management Pty Ltd (1992) 108 FLR 140
Horwood v Statesman Publishing Co Limited [1929] WN 38
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 564
Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178
Lauren & Jendas Pty Ltd v Jolly (Supreme Court of Victoria, unreported, 26 August 1996)
LED Pty Ltd v Masterson Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd (1984) IPR 393
Lee v Arthur (1909) 100 LT 61
Martin v Martin & Co [1897] 1 QB 49
Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (1980) 145 CLR 457
Muller v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Federal Court of Australia, 17 July 1997, unreported)
Saker v Creative Land Management (Supreme Court of Western Australia, unreported, February 2000)
The Owners of the Ship "Shin Kobe Maru" v Empire Shipping Company Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404
Thomas &Morgan (United Kingdom) Ltd v Erica Vale Australia Pty Ltd (1995) 31 IPR 335

PARTIES :

6085/01
A Goninan & Co Ltd (P/XD1/R1)
Atlas Steels (Australia) Pty Ltd (D1/XD2/R2)
Pacific National (NSW) Pty Ltd (D2/XP/A)
4112/03
BHP Steel (JLA) Pty Ltd (P/R3)
Samancor Ltd (D1/R4)
Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corporation Ltd (D2/R4)
Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd (D3/R4)
3355/03
Atlas Steels (Australia) Pty Ltd (P/R2)
BHP Steel (JLA) Pty Ltd (D1/R3)
Samancor Ltd (D2/R4)
Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corporation Ltd (D3/R4)
Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa (D4/R4)
A Goninan & Co Ltd (D5/R1)
2237/02
A Goninan & Co Ltd (P/R1)
BHP Steel (JLA) Pty Ltd (D1/R3)
1746/03
A Goninan & Co Ltd (P/R1)
Samancor Ltd (D1/R4)
Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corporation Ltd (D2/R4)
Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd (D3/R4)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 6085/01; 4112/03; 3355/03; 2237/02; 1746/03

COUNSEL: S Klotz (Sol) (A)
G K Burton (R1)
P H Greenwood SC (R2)
Ms J…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read A Goninan & Co v Atlas Steels and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] NSWSC 956
Decision Date: 24 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between A Goninan & Co and Atlas Steels was heard in the High Court of Australia. The case involved the consolidation of proceedings between two separate legal actions and the cross-vesting of jurisdiction from the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court was required to apply the law of the transferring State, New South Wales, in the consolidated proceedings.

The legal issues centred on the principles of consolidation of proceedings and the cross-vesting of jurisdiction between State Supreme Courts. The court had to determine whether the Supreme Court of Western Australia was required to apply the law of New South Wales, where the proceedings were originally initiated, or whether it could apply its own jurisdiction's law in the consolidated matter. This issue was crucial as it determined the applicable legal framework and potentially influenced the outcome of the consolidated proceedings.

The court held that in the case of cross-vesting of jurisdiction, the transferring court's law would generally apply in the consolidated proceedings. However, the court also noted that this principle could be displaced by federal law or specific provisions in the legislation governing cross-vesting. The court concluded that the Supreme Court of Western Australia was not required to apply the law of New South Wales in the consolidated proceedings, as there was no federal law or legislative provision mandating such application. Instead, the Supreme Court of Western Australia could apply its own jurisdiction's law in the consolidated matter.

The High Court of Australia ordered that the appeal be allowed, and the case be remitted to the Supreme Court of Western Australia for further proceedings in accordance with the court's reasoning. The court's decision clarified the legal principles governing the consolidation of proceedings and the cross-vesting of jurisdiction between State Supreme Courts, providing guidance for future cases involving similar issues.

Orders