Buckley v Gibbett

Case [1996] FCA 836


CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE - cross-vesting - transfer of proceedings - transfer from Federal Court to Supreme Court of South Australia - whether proceedings related - whether transfer appropriate or in the interests of justice - evidence of impecuniosity of applicants and first respondent - relevance of video link facility in Federal Court - whether introduction of increased fees to Federal Court relevant

Corporations Act 1989
Corporations (South Australia) Act 1990
Corporations (Western Australia) Act 1990
Crown Proceedings Act 1992 (SA)
Fair Trading Act, s10
Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA), s56
Health Act 1911 (WA)
The Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations 1993 (WA)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987
Sale of Goods Act (SA)
South Australian Timber Corporation Act 1979
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s52
Wrongs Act 1936 (SA)

Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 92 FLR 153
Bourke v State Bank of New South Wales (1989) 85 ALR 61
Cascade Group Ltd v Carlton United Breweries Ltd (1992) ATPR 41-172
Re Hamilton-Irvine (1990) 94 ALR 428
Harrison v Trewhella (1994) 13 WAR 394
Lamshed v Lamshed (1992) 35 FCR

GREGORY MAURICE BUCKLEY and BRISK SHAVINGS SUPPLIES PTY LIMITED (ACN 060 902 605) v KENNETH MAXWELL GIBBETT and BRISK SHAVINGS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 060 902 614) and FORWOOD PRODUCTS PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 089 727) and SOUTH AUSTRALIA TIMBER CORPORATION and ABBOTT & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED (ACN 009 298 542) and STEPHEN HILTON ABBOTT
NO WAG 55 OF 1996

R D NICHOLSON J
PERTH
18 SEPTEMBER 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA            )

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY       )

GENERAL DIVISION  )  NO WAG 55 OF 1996

B E T W E E N:  GREGORY MAURICE BUCKLEY

First Applicant

and

BRISK SHAVINGS SUPPLIES PTY LIMITED

(ACN 060 902 605)

Second Applicant

and

KENNETH MAXWELL GIBBETT

First Respondent

and

BRISK SHAVINGS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

(ACN 060 902 614)

Second Respondent

and

FORWOOD PRODUCTS PTY LIMITED

(ACN 008 089 727)

Third Respondent

and

SOUTH AUSTRALIA TIMBER CORPORATION

Fourth Respondent

and

ABBOTT & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED

(ACN 009 298 542)

Fifth Respondent

and

STEPHEN HILTON ABBOTT

Sixth Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:            R D NICHOLSON J

DATE OF ORDER:  18 SEPTEMBER 1996

WHERE MADE:  PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The motion of the first and second respondents filed on 30 July 1996 be refused.

  1. Paragraph 2 of the motion of the third and fourth respondents filed on 22 July 1996 be refused.

  1. The applicants and the fifth and sixth respondents file and serve written submissions on costs within 7 days with a right to the remaining parties to reply within a further 7 days.

  1. The matter be set down for directions on 10 October 1996 at 10.0am.                    

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA            )

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY       )

GENERAL DIVISION  )  NO WAG 55 OF 1996

B E T W E E N:  GREGORY MAURICE BUCKLEY

First Applicant

and

BRISK SHAVINGS SUPPLIES PTY LIMITED

Continue reading Buckley v Gibbett

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Buckley v Gibbett [1996] FCA 836
Case
[1996] FCA 836
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Buckley and Brisk Shavings Supplies Pty Limited sought to transfer proceedings from the Federal Court of Australia to the Supreme Court of South Australia. The respondents opposed the transfer. The Court was required to determine whether the transfer of the proceedings was appropriate or in the interests of justice. The Court considered factors including the relationship between the proceedings, the convenience and expense of the parties, and the interests of justice. The Court found that the proceedings were related, but the balance of factors favoured keeping the proceedings in the Federal Court. The Court refused the motions for transfer.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.