Colquhoun v SAS Trustee Corporation - [2018] NSWSC 529

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Colquhoun v SAS Trustee Corporation [2018] NSWSC 529
Hearing dates: 16 April 2018
Decision date: 30 April 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) The proceedings are transferred to the District Court of New South Wales pursuant to s 146(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of these proceedings thrown away, on the ordinary basis, resulting from these proceedings being incorrectly commenced in the Supreme Court.
Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction – Transfers to and from other courts – District Court - Proceedings erroneously commenced in Court without jurisdiction – Whether power to transfer proceedings to District Court under s 146 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005
COSTS – Party/Party – Cost orders in interlocutory proceedings – Costs in the cause – Court’s discretion
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 98, 146, 147, 148
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 44
Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), s 181 and Sch 4, Pt 18, cll 65(1), 66(1)
Industrial Relations Amendment (Industrial Court) Act 2016, Sch 2, cl 2.33
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), ss 10, 10B, 21
Superannuation Administration Act 1996 (NSW), ss 67, 88
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.1
Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41
Barr (a pseudonym) v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2018] NSWCA 47
Bigg v SAS Trustee Corporation [2016] NSWCA 236
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11
Philip Evans v SAS Trustee Corporation (District Court (NSW), 10 December 2008, unrep)
Re Macks; Ex parte Saint (2000) 204 CLR 158; [2000] HCA 62
SAS Trustee Corporation v Rossetti [2018] NSWCA 68
SAS Trustee Corporation v Woollard [2014] NSWCA 75
Victorian Stevedoring and General Contracting Co Pty Ltd v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73; [1931] HCA 34
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Thomas Colquhoun (Plaintiff)
SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Morris SC (Plaintiff)
T Ower (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Cardillo Gray Partners (Plaintiff)
M Bendall (SAS Trustee Corporation) (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2016/353548
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

By notice of motion filed on 10 April 2018, the defendant, SAS Trustee Corporation (“STC”), seeks orders that these proceedings be transferred to the District Court pursuant to s 146(1) of the Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW). It also seeks an order that costs of the proceedings be costs in the cause.

Background

The plaintiff, Thomas Colquhoun, is a former police officer of the New South Wales Police Force. He resigned from that role on 14 December 1993.
On 21 August 2012, the plaintiff made an application for benefits payable under s 10 of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) (“Police Regulation Act”). STC administers the superannuation scheme established by the Police Regulation Act. Before the plaintiff could receive the benefits applied for, it…

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 Colquhoun v SAS Trustee Corporation 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: [2018] NSWSC 529
Decision Date: 30 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Colquhoun v SAS Trustee Corporation involved a dispute over the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Queensland and the appropriate forum for proceedings. The plaintiff sought a declaration and injunction in relation to a dispute over a statutory demand. The SAS Trustee Corporation, as the defendant, challenged the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, arguing that the proper forum for the proceedings was the District Court. The matter came before the Supreme Court to determine whether the proceedings could be transferred to the District Court under section 146 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Supreme Court had erred in exercising its jurisdiction and whether the court had the power to transfer the proceedings to the District Court. The court had to consider the appropriate application of section 146 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, which allows for the transfer of proceedings to and from other courts. Additionally, the court was required to consider the appropriate exercise of its discretion in determining costs in interlocutory proceedings.

In determining the issues, the court found that it had indeed erred in exercising its jurisdiction, as the matter was more appropriately heard in the District Court. The court held that it had the power to transfer the proceedings to the District Court under section 146 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. The court also considered the appropriate exercise of its discretion in relation to costs, ultimately determining that the plaintiff was entitled to costs in the cause. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory framework and the principles of judicial discretion in interlocutory matters.

The final orders of the court were that the proceedings be transferred to the District Court, and that the plaintiff be entitled to costs in the cause. This decision provided clarity on the jurisdictional boundaries between the Supreme Court and the District Court, as well as the appropriate exercise of discretion in interlocutory proceedings.

Orders