Geoffrey Kenneth Woodham v Lyn Lander - [2004] ACTSC 34

GEOFFREY KENNETH WOODHAM & ANOR v LYN LANDER & ORS
[2004] ACTSC 34 (28 May 2004)

PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – interstate service – setting aside – cross-vesting of jurisdiction
TRADE PRACTICES – declaration – whether within exclusive jurisdiction of Federal Court – whether Territory Court has jurisdiction

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth),

Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)

Supreme Court Rules, Order 13 rule 17

Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), s 15

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1993, s 5

Australian Constitution, s 51(xxiv)
Fair Trading Act 1992

Supreme Court Act 1933

Stevens v Head (1993) 176 CLR 433

John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503

British South Africa Co v Companhia de Mocambique [1893] AC 602

Re Wakim ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511

Stack v Coast Securities (No. 9) Pty Limited (1983) 154 CLR 261

No. SC 767 of 2003

Judge: Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 28 May 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 767 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

BETWEEN:GEOFFREY KENNETH WOODHAM
First plaintiff

AND:GEOFF WOODHAM FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(ACN 056 698 358)

Second plaintiff

AND:LYN LANDER
First defendant

AND:GDK FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS PTY LIMITED
(ACN 033 182 341)

Second defendant

AND:DAVID McLEOD
Third defendant

AND:PUTUSO PTY LIMITED
(ACN 002 387 426)

Fourth defendant

AND:ROBERT WEST
Fifth defendant

AND:TIBOR PAUL SINGER
Sixth defendant

AND:MAXE-TEC AUSTRALIA LIMITED
(ACN 058 834 343)

Seventh defendant

AND:YALTARA NOMINEES PTY LIMITED
(ACN 064 261 132)

Eighth defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  28 May 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application be dismissed.

The applicants (the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th defendants) pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the application.

This is an application made by six of the eight defendants to the action, seeking an order that service of the originating application and statement of claim be set aside. The notice of motion also seeks an order that an affidavit sworn by the plaintiff be struck out and taken off the court file, or alternatively, that the affidavit be sealed and its inspection be prohibited other than by order. As it turns out, the affidavit had been lodged but rejected for filing and returned to the plaintiffs with a requisition: the requisition has not been complied with and the affidavit has not been filed, although a copy was made available to me without objection on the hearing of the application, to assist me in understanding the background. At this stage, the order sought in relation to the affidavit is unnecessary and is not pursued.

As the argument on behalf of the applicant defendants developed on hearing and through subsequent written submissions, it is now contended on their behalf that regardless of issues of service and jurisdiction, the claim by the plaintiffs is fundamentally flawed, and is not justiciable in this Court.…

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 Geoffrey Kenneth Woodham v Lyn Lander 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: [2004] ACTSC 34
Decision Date: 28 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Federal Court of Australia involves Geoffrey Kenneth Woodham, the appellant, against Lyn Lander, the respondent. The dispute revolves around the appellant's challenge to the dismissal of his application for the setting aside of a default judgment. This judgment was obtained by the respondent in the Northern Territory Court. The appeal seeks to contest the Northern Territory Court's jurisdiction and the manner in which the appellant was served with the originating application.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Northern Territory Court had the jurisdiction to hear the respondent's application for a declaration and, if so, whether the court had jurisdiction to order interstate service. Additionally, the court had to determine if the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, considering the respondent's declaration sought under the Trade Practices Act. The court also needed to decide whether the Northern Territory Court had the authority to cross-vest jurisdiction from the Federal Court.

The court held that the Northern Territory Court had jurisdiction to hear the respondent's application. It found that the Federal Court did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, as the respondent's declaration did not pertain to conduct that was exclusively regulated by the Trade Practices Act. The court further determined that the Northern Territory Court was not precluded from exercising its jurisdiction by any provisions in the Acts Interpretation Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the application to set aside the default judgment was denied.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application be dismissed.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.