Legal Research
Cases
Computershare Ltd v Perpetual Registrars Ltd (No 3)

Computershare Ltd v Perpetual Registrars Ltd (No 3)

Link copied

Case Copied 25 July 2000 65 min read

Contents

On this page

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COMMERCIAL & EQUITY DIVISION COMMERCIAL LIST	Not restricted

No. 2031 of 2000
F5146

COMPUTERSHARE LIMITED (ACN 005 485 825)	Plaintiff
v
PERPETUAL REGISTRARS LIMITED & ORS (ACN 083 214 537)
Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Warren J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 June 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 July 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Computershare Ltd v Perpetual Registrars Ltd & Ors (No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 286

---

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Vic) ss.6 and 9 – Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s.6 – Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2000 (Cth) – Federal Courts (Consequential Amendments) Act 2000 (Vic) – Trade Practices Act 1974 – transfer of proceeding to Federal Court – "accrued jurisdiction" of Federal Court – "special federal matter".

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	J. Beach QC with D. Star	Minter Ellison
For the First and Second Defendants	A. Archibald QC with P. Clarke	Blake Dawson Waldron
For the third Defendant	S. Marks	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
For the Attorney–General Of the State of Victoria	D. Graham QC Solicitor General for the State of Victoria with Ms P. Tate	Victorian Government Solicitor
For the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth	D.M.J. Bennett QC Solicitor General for the Commonwealth with C. Horan	Australian Government Solicitor

HER HONOUR:

The plaintiff claims that the defendants wrongfully disclosed confidential information. The plaintiff bases its claim in contract and equity. The first and second defendants in their defence and counterclaim have denied the allegations and, also, pleaded that in so far as there were arrangements between them and the plaintiff such arrangements contravened the restrictive trade practices provisions Part IV of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The provisions of the statute fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia. As a consequence, the first and second defendants seek the transfer of the proceeding pursuant to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Vic). The plaintiff opposes the application and urges that the proceeding remain within the Commercial List of this court.

Each of the defendants supported the cross resting of the proceedings. Notice was given to the Attorneys–General for the State of Victoria and the Commonwealth of Australia. Submissions in support of the transfer of the proceedings were made on behalf of the Attorneys-General.

BACKGROUND

Computershare is engaged in the business of providing share registry and bureau services for public listed companies. These services are generally referred to in the industry as bureau services. The services provided by Computershare include the provision of a share registry involving the maintenance of a database of share holders and details, the processing of share transfers, the calculation and payment of dividends, the management of dividend reinvestment plans and other various activities relating to provision of share registry and maintenance. It also provides bureau services consisting of the maintenance of a central computer system that contains the database of registry information and matters derived from the registry services provided by Computershare. 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 Computershare Ltd v Perpetual Registrars Ltd (No 3) 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: [2000] VSC 286
Decision Date: 25 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Computershare Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Perpetual Registrars Ltd, seeking damages for alleged breaches of contract and other related claims. The dispute was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was required to determine whether the matter should be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the Federal Court had accrued jurisdiction over the matter, given the involvement of federal legislation such as the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the relevant cross-vesting acts.

The court examined the provisions of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Vic) and its federal counterpart, as well as the consequential amendments introduced by the Federal Courts (Consequential Amendments) Act 2000 (Vic). It considered whether the case involved a "special federal matter" under the Trade Practices Act 1974, which would confer upon the Federal Court the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case. The court also took into account the "accrued jurisdiction" of the Federal Court, which allows it to hear cases that have been initiated in state or territory courts but fall within its federal jurisdiction.

After careful consideration of the statutory provisions and their interplay, the court concluded that the matter indeed involved a "special federal matter" due to the significant federal legislative elements. Consequently, the court found that the Federal Court had accrued jurisdiction over the proceeding. The Supreme Court of Victoria transferred the case to the Federal Court, aligning with the statutory framework designed to ensure appropriate allocation of judicial resources and expertise.

As a result of the court's decision, the proceedings were transferred to the Federal Court of Australia, where the matter will be heard and determined in accordance with federal law.

Orders