Elders Ltd v Swinbank - [2000] FCA 56

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Elders Ltd v Swinbank [2000] FCA 56
JURISDICTION - application of Re Wakim - original jurisdiction of Federal Court - accrued jurisdiction of Federal Court - whether proceeding is within Court’s original jurisdiction - insurance - interest on amount payable under a contract of insurance - interest on damages
WORDS & PHRASES - a matter arising under a law of the Parliament
Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) ss 13, 57
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (SA)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B(1A)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 19
Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 30C
Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA) s 11
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 163 ALR 270; [1999] HCA 27 applied
Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 195 CLR 96; [1998] HCA 58 cited
LNC Industries Ltd v BMW (Australia) Ltd (1983) 151 CLR 575 discussed
Re McJannet; Ex parte AWU of Employees (Q) [No 2] (1997) 189 CLR 654 referred to
Transport Workers Union v Lee (1998) 84 FCR 60 cited
National Union of Workers v Davids Distribution Pty Ltd (1999) 165 ALR 595; [1999] FCA 1109 discussed
Westpac Banking Corporation v Paterson [1999] FCA 1609 referred to
Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (1980) 145 CLR 457 cited
Felton v Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367 cited
Stack v Coast Securities (No 9) Pty Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 261 referred to
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570 cited
Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60 referred to
Hungerfords v Walker (1990) 171 CLR 125 cited
Sneade v Wotherton Barytes & Lead Mining Co Ltd [1904] 1 KB 295 distinguished
ELDERS LIMITED, DEREL ERF LIMITED AND FOSTERS BREWING GROUP LIMITED v CHRISTOPHER MARK SWINBANK, GREAT LAKES INSURANCE (UK) PLC, THE GAN INCENDIE ACCIDENTS COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE D'ASSURANCES ET DE REASSURANCES INCENDIE ACCIDENTS ET RISQUE DIVERS, ROYAL INSURANCE (UK) LIMITED, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MASSACHUSETTS) LIMITED, SCOTTISH LION INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SPHERE DRAKE UNDERWRITING MANAGEMENT LIMITED, LONDON ASSURANCE AND TRINITY INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
SG 79 OF 1997
DRUMMOND, SUNDBERG AND MARSHALL JJ
4 FEBRUARY 2000
BRISBANE (HEARD IN ADELAIDE) (VIA VIDEO LINK TO ADELAIDE & MELBOURNE)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SG 79 OF 1997

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

ELDERS LIMITED, DEREL ERF LIMITED AND FOSTERS BREWING GROUP LIMITED
Appellants

AND:

CHRISTOPHER MARK SWINBANK, GREAT LAKES INSURANCE (UK) PLC, THE GAN INCENDIE ACCIDENTS COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE D'ASSURANCES ET DE REASSURANCES INCENDIE ACCIDENTS ET RISQUE DIVERS, ROYAL INSURANCE (UK) LIMITED, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MASSACHUSETTS) LIMITED, SCOTTISH LION INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SPHERE DRAKE UNDERWRITING MANAGEMENT LIMITED, LONDON ASSURANCE AND TRINITY INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Respondents

JUDGES:

DRUMMOND, SUNDBERG AND MARSHALL JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

4 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE (HEARD IN ADELAIDE) (VIA VIDEO LINK TO ADELAIDE & MELBOURNE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave be granted to appeal against the declarations and orders pronounced by the Honourable Justice Mansfield in this…

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 Elders Ltd v Swinbank 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] FCA 56
Decision Date: 4 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Elders Ltd versus Swinbank, the High Court was presented with an appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute involved a challenge to the validity of certain declarations and orders made by Justice Mansfield on 16 June 1999. These orders were significant as they pertained to the interpretation and enforcement of certain financial agreements and transactions between the parties.

The legal issues that the Court needed to address were whether the Court of Appeal had the necessary jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceeding, and if so, whether it had correctly exercised that jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court had to consider the scope of appellate jurisdiction in reviewing decisions made by a single judge in the Supreme Court and whether such decisions could be subject to review by the Court of Appeal. This involved examining the statutory provisions governing the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and the principles that guide judicial review of decisions made by a single judge.

In its reasoning, the Court concluded that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceeding. It found that the appeal was not an appropriate method to review the decisions of a single judge and that the Court of Appeal had overstepped its jurisdictional boundaries. The Court held that the proceeding should be stayed for want of jurisdiction, affirming that the Court of Appeal's intervention in this instance was improper. The Court thus allowed the appeal on the specified ground and directed that the entire proceeding be stayed, effectively nullifying the earlier orders made by Justice Mansfield.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave be granted to appeal against the declarations and orders pronounced by the Honourable Justice Mansfield in this proceeding on 16 June 1999, such leave being limited to whether this Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceeding or any part thereof.

2. The appeal be allowed on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceeding or any part thereof.

3. The entire proceeding be stayed for want of jurisdiction.

Note:

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

DRUMMOND, SUNDBERG AND MARSHALL JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: DRUMMOND, SUNDBERG AND MARSHALL JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SG 79 OF 1997

JUDGES:	DRUMMOND, SUNDBERG AND MARSHALL JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	4 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE (HEARD IN ADELAIDE) (VIA VIDEO LINK TO ADELAIDE & MELBOURNE)