Activate No 1 Pty Ltd v Equuscorp Pty Ltd - [1999] FCA 619

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Activate No 1 Pty Ltd v Equuscorp Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 619
PRACTICE and PROCEDURE – Application under cross-vesting legislation to transfer proceeding to Supreme Court of Victoria – Criteria for transfer set out in legislation – Related proceedings in State court – Consideration of more appropriate forum and the interests of justice – Purpose of legislation in avoiding fragmentation of litigation.
WORDS and PHRASES: “related to”, “more appropriate”, “interests of justice”
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s 5(4)
Trade Practices Act1974 (Cth) ss 51A, 52, 82 and 86
Real Property Act 1901 (NSW), s 42
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 115A(2)(c)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Equuscorp Litigation [1999] VSC 21, followed
Buckley v Gibbett (1996) 69 FCR 554, cited
Linter (in Liq) v Price Waterhouse (1992) 9 ACSR 346, cited
Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 14 NSWLR 711, followed
Spilada Maritime Corporation v Consulex Ltd [1987] 1 AC 460, cited
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538, distinguished
Schmidt v Won [1998] 3 VR 435, cited
PIHA vVidex Tubemakers [1999] FCA 132, followed
Bahr v Nicolay (1988) 164 CLR 604, cited
Cascade Group Ltd v Carlton and United Breweries Ltd (1992) ATPR 41-172, cited
T O’Connor & Sons v Clough [1996] FCA 263, cited
Teserioro v Matstar Pty Ltd (1990) 93 ALR 607, cited
ACTIVATE NO 1 PTY LIMITED and the persons whose names are set out in Schedule A-C annexed to the Application v
EQUUSCORP PTY LTD, PHILIP ARTHUR HENNESSY, ALEXANDER ROBERT MacKAY MacINTOSH AND MICHAEL JOSEPH DWYER
NG 1062 OF 1998
TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
11 MAY 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG1062 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

ACTIVATE NO 1 PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 071 950)
and the persons whose names are set out in Schedules A-C annexed to the Application
Applicants

AND:

EQUUSCORP PTY LTD (ACN 006 012 334)
First Respondent

PHILIP ARTHUR HENNESSY
Second Respondent

ALEXANDER ROBERT MacKAY MacINTOSH
Third Respondent

MICHAEL JOSEPH DWYER
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 MAY 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceedings shall be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria.
2.The respondents on the Motion pay the costs of the applicants on the application.
3.Liberty to apply is reserved on 24 hours notice in relation to any matters which may arise in relation to giving effect to Order 1.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG1062 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

ACTIVATE NO 1 PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 071 950)
And the persons whose names are set out in Schedules A-C annexed to the Application
Applicants

AND:

EQUUSCORP PTY LTD (ACN 006 012 334)
First Respondent

PHILIP ARTHUR HENNESSY
Second Respondent

ALEXANDER ROBERT MacKAY MacINTOSH
Third Respondent

MICHAEL JOSEPH DWYER
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE:

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 Activate No 1 Pty Ltd v Equuscorp Pty Ltd 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: [1999] FCA 619
Decision Date: 11 MAY 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings in Activate No 1 Pty Ltd v Equuscorp Pty Ltd involve a dispute between the two companies, Activate No 1 Pty Ltd and Equuscorp Pty Ltd. The nature of the dispute is not explicitly detailed in the summary, but it pertains to a matter that was initially heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The case was subsequently brought before the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the Federal Circuit Court had the necessary jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. This question arose from the complex interplay of various statutory provisions, which could potentially affect the allocation of judicial power between the Federal Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of Victoria. The High Court's role was to clarify the jurisdictional boundaries and determine the most suitable court for the proceedings.

The High Court found that the Federal Circuit Court did not have the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the case fell outside the scope of its statutory authority. The Court held that the proceedings should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria, which has the appropriate jurisdiction to hear the case. The reasoning was grounded in a detailed interpretation of the relevant statutes, focusing on the specific provisions that defined the jurisdictional limits of the Federal Circuit Court. The Court also considered the nature of the dispute and the legal principles that underpin the allocation of judicial power in Australia.

The High Court's orders were straightforward. The proceedings were to be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria, and the respondents were to pay the applicants' costs for the application. Additionally, the Court reserved the right to grant further orders as necessary, allowing for any issues that might arise in the implementation of the transfer. This decision clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between the Federal Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of Victoria, providing guidance for similar future cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceedings shall be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

2. The respondents on the Motion pay the costs of the applicants on the application.

3. Liberty to apply is reserved on 24 hours notice in relation to any matters which may arise in relation to giving effect to Order 1.

Note:

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG1062 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	ACTIVATE NO 1 PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 071 950) and the persons whose names are set out in Schedules A-C annexed to the Application Applicants
AND:	EQUUSCORP PTY LTD (ACN 006 012 334) First Respondent PHILIP ARTHUR HENNESSY Second Respondent ALEXANDER ROBERT MacKAY MacINTOSH Third Respondent MICHAEL JOSEPH DWYER Fourth Respondent
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 MAY 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY