Buckingham Gate International Pty Ltd v Australia New Zealand Banking Group Limited; MWW Baker Pty Ltd v Australia New Zealand Banking Group Limited; Jasorc Pty Ltd v Australia New Zealand Banking Group Limited;

The consolidated appeals concern the constitutionality of the Corporations (NSW) Act, focusing on whether the act's provisions are validly enacted under the legislative powers of New South Wales or if they are constitutionally flawed due to the Commonwealth's sovereignty. The appeals were heard in the Federal Court of Australia, with the respondents being Australia New Zealand Banking Group Limited. The appellants, Buckingham Gate International Pty Ltd, MWW Baker Pty Ltd, and Jasorc Pty Ltd, challenged the validity of certain sections of the Corporations (NSW) Act, asserting that the state's legislative power no longer exists as a result of changes in the Commonwealth's sovereignty. The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Commonwealth Constitution, particularly sections 109 and 102(1), and whether the legislative power of the state of New South Wales to enact the Corporations (NSW) Act remained intact.

The court addressed the appellants' contention that the Commonwealth's evolving sovereignty has rendered the state's legislative power ineffective. The court found that the state's legislative power to enact the Corporations (NSW) Act remained valid as it was based on an independent foundation under section 7 of the act. The court held that New South Wales, as a state, did not cease to exist with the change in its sovereignty, and thus, its legislative power remained intact. Additionally, the court considered the issue of indemnity costs against the legal practitioner representing the appellants, noting the repeated submission of untenable arguments and the lack of deterrence in the previous cost orders. The court found that the persistent nature of the submissions warranted further consideration of cost orders against the legal practitioner.

The court ultimately dismissed the appeals, affirming the validity of the Corporations (NSW) Act and its provisions. The court also noted that further observations regarding the repeated and untenable submissions would be considered in relation to the indemnity costs against the appellants' legal practitioner. The final orders included the dismissal of the appeals and a direction for the legal practitioner to show cause as to why indemnity costs should not be awarded against them for the repeated submissions.