Eastley v Mauger

[2000] FCA 266

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Eastley v Mauger [2000] FCA 266

DANIEL CLIFFORD EASTLEY & ORS v EDWIN MAUGER & ANOR
N 782 of 1999

SACKVILLE  J
2 MARCH 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 782 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	DANIEL CLIFFORD EASTLEY APPLICANT
AND:	EDWIN MAUGER RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE:	2 MARCH 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to s 86A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (“TP Act”) which is attracted to this case by virtue of s 75AS of the TP Act, these proceedings be transferred to the District Court of New South Wales.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 782 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	DANIEL CLIFFORD EASTLEY APPLICANT
AND:	EDWIN MAUGER RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE:	2 MARCH 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I propose to make an order pursuant to s 86A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (“TP Act”) which is attracted to this case by virtue of s 75AS of the TP Act, transferring these proceedings to the District Court of New South Wales.

2. The applicant’s case as pleaded includes a claim under Part VA of the TP Act. However, my impression is that that claim is subsidiary to the claim founded on breach of duty.  The District Court is well suited to determine the claim which, in substance, arises under State law.

3. I note that there is no question that the District Court of New South Wales has the power to grant the remedies that are sought by the applicant in these proceedings.

4. There is no opposition to the course that has been proposed.  In my view it is in the interests of justice that the order should be made.

5. It follows that s 86A(2) of the TP Act is satisfied.   I therefore make an order that the proceedings be transferred to the District Court.

   I certify that the preceding five (5)
   numbered paragraphs are a true copy

   of the Reasons for Judgment herein
   of the Honourable Justice Sackville.

   Associate:

   Dated:             2 March 2000

   Counsel for applicant:              Mr C E Moore

   Solicitor for applicant:   Peter Long & Co

   Counsel for first
   respondent:  Mr R J Colquhoun

   Solicitor for first
   respondent:  Robert Johns

   Solicitor appearing for   Mr W A D Vorbach
   second respondent:                  of Ebsworth & Ebsworth

   Solicitor appearing for   Mr A L Edwards
   proposed cross-  of P W Turk & Associates
   respondent:

   Date of Hearing:          2 March 2000

   Date of Judgment:        2 March 2000