Legal Research
Cases
Australian Postal Commission v Hayes

Australian Postal Commission v Hayes

Link copied

Case Copied 28 April 1989 12 min read

Contents

On this page

Re: HABEN CORPORATION LTD
And: PRICE WATERHOUSE (a partnership)
No. G 1404 of 1988
FED No. 176
Practice and Procedure

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Neaves J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Practice and Procedure - claim for damages for breach of contract - Application to transfer proceeding to Supreme Court of Western Australia under cross-vesting legislation - Requirements of rules of court.

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (WA), s.4

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), ss.5(4), 9(2)

HEARING

CANBERRA

#DATE 28:4:1989

Counsel for Haben Corporation Ltd Mr S.J. Motbey

Solicitors for Haben Corporation Ltd Phillips Fox

Counsel for Price Waterhouse Mr D.E. Ryan

Solicitors for Price Waterhouse Freehill, Hollingdale & Page

ORDER

Pursuant to the provisions of sub-s.5(4) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), the proceeding pending in this Court in which Haben Corporation Ltd is the applicant and the members of the firm Price Waterhouse are the respondents and which is numbered G 1404 of 1988 be transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The costs of the motion herein be costs in the cause.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

This is a motion on notice by the members of the firm Price Waterhouse ("the respondents") for an order pursuant to sub-s.5(4) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) that a certain proceeding pending in this Court be transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia or, alternatively, for an order pursuant to s.48 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and Order 10, rule 1(2)(f) of the Federal Court Rules that the proceeding be transferred to the Western Australia Registry of the Court.

The proceeding sought to be transferred was instituted in the New South Wales District Registry of this Court by Haben Corporation Limited ("the company") against the members of the firm of chartered accountants carrying on practice under the name and style of Price Waterhouse. By the application filed on its behalf on 7 December 1988 the company claims damages, interest and costs "on the grounds appearing in the accompanying Statement of Claim".
The statement of claim refers to the incorporation of the company under the laws of the State of New South Wales and states that at all material times it carried on business principally in Perth, Western Australia, providing specialist technological services and know-how to persons seeking to develop new technology. The company is alleged to have owned in its own right the intellectual property in an invention known as Continuously Variable Transmission ("CVT") which was ready to be further improved and developed. It is further alleged that in or about March and April 1988 negotiations took place between the company and the respondents "with a view to the engagement of the Respondents, for award (sic), to formulate a contractual scheme or arrangement ('the Section 73B package') whereby the Applicant (the company) could exploit or…

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 Australian Postal Commission v Hayes 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: [1989] FCA 176
Decision Date: 28 APRIL 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Australian Postal Commission brought an action against Hayes seeking damages for a breach of contract. The matter was initially heard by the Federal Court, but the parties agreed to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The basis of the transfer application was the cross-vesting legislation, specifically the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth). The applicants argued that the matter should be heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia due to its connection to the State.

The primary legal issue the court needed to decide was whether the transfer application met the requirements set out in the relevant rules of court. The applicants needed to demonstrate that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Western Australia under the cross-vesting legislation. The respondents raised concerns about the timing of the application and potential prejudice to their case if the matter was transferred. The court needed to weigh these considerations against the provisions of the cross-vesting legislation.

After considering the arguments of both parties and the relevant rules of court, the court found that the transfer application met the necessary criteria. The court was satisfied that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and that there was no prejudice to the respondents that would outweigh the benefits of the transfer. Accordingly, the court ordered the transfer of the proceeding to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The court also ordered that the costs of the motion be costs in the cause, as per Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

The orders of the court were that the proceeding pending in the Federal Court, in which Haben Corporation Ltd was the applicant and the members of the firm Price Waterhouse were the respondents, be transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Additionally, the costs of the motion were to be costs in the cause.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to the provisions of sub-s.5(4) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), the proceeding pending in this Court in which Haben Corporation Ltd is the applicant and the members of the firm Price Waterhouse are the respondents and which is numbered G 1404 of 1988 be transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The costs of the motion herein be costs in the cause.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.