Cosmic Wind Services Pty Ltd v Windhoist Australia Pty Ltd

[2020] FCA 1856

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Cosmic Wind Services Pty Ltd v Windhoist Australia Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1856

File number(s):	QUD 244 of 2020
Judgment of:	GREENWOOD J
Date of judgment:	30 October 2020
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of an application to dismiss the proceeding as not raising a matter of federal jurisdiction
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Queensland
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Number of paragraphs:	8
Date of hearing:	30 October 2020
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr S Trewavas
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Celtic Legal
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr M Drysdale
Solicitor for the Respondent:	HopgoodGanim Lawyers

ORDERS

QUD 244 of 2020

BETWEEN:

COSMIC WIND SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 614 545 901

Applicant

AND:

WINDHOIST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 128 832 575

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	GREENWOOD J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 OCTOBER 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceeding is dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding. 

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GREENWOOD J:

1. This is a proceeding which was commenced on 5 August 2020 by originating application in which the details of the claim are that the applicant sought an order from the Court that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $1,632,184.90 pursuant to a contract, or in the alternative, damages for breach of contract. 

2. The second order sought, in the alternative to Order 1, was that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $1,632,184.90 as a quantum meruit. 

3. The applicant also sought interest pursuant to s 51A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

4. A statement of claim was delivered in support of those claims for relief and the subject matter of the statement of claim goes to that contract question.  When the matter originally came before the Court for a case management conference, it was accepted that no ground of federal jurisdiction was invoked by the proceeding.  Time was allowed to enable the applicant to deliver, if thought appropriate, an amended statement of claim which might have had the effect of raising material facts which give rise to a head of federal jurisdiction on any basis on which one might be thought to subsist. 

5. As it transpires, no such amended statement of claim has emerged, and it is common ground between the parties, and especially the applicant, that the proceeding does not invoke a ground of federal jurisdiction, in which event, the jurisdiction of the Court is not regularly engaged or invoked.  Accordingly, the question that arises now is whether the proceeding should be dismissed.  The Court in the regulation of the proceedings before it, has jurisdiction for the purposes of determining its jurisdiction, and has authority and jurisdiction to make orders consistent with resolving that question.  It is not necessary to cite authority for these propositions.  These propositions are well accepted as a matter of law. 

6. Accordingly, the appropriate order is that the proceeding be dismissed. 

7. I make that order. 

8. The next question that arises is whether the applicant ought to be ordered to pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the proceeding.  Such an order is appropriately incidental to the power to determine the jurisdictional question, and I so determine that the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on the usual basis.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Greenwood.

Associate:

Dated:       30 October 2020