BRENNAN CJ, TOOHEY, GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW AND KIRBY JJ
VANDA RUSSELL GOULD & ORS APPELLANTS
AND
MARTIN RUSSELL BROWN in his capacity as liquidator of Amann Aviation Pty Limited (in liquidation) RESPONDENT
Gould v Brown (S204/1996) [1998] HCA 6 2 February 1998
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.
On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia
Representation:
F M Douglas QC with P J Dowdy and K M Connor for the appellants (instructed by Henry Davis York)
S D Robb QC with A Robertson SC and M A Jones for the respondent (instructed by Nash O'Neill Tomko)
2.
Interveners:
D R Williams QC (Attorney-General) with G Griffiths QC, H C Burmester and S J Gageler intervening on behalf of the Commonwealth (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)
P A Keane QC with R W Campbell intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (instructed by the Crown Solicitor for the State of Queensland)
D Graham QC with C M Caleo intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria (instructed by the Victorian Government Solicitor)
R J Meadows QC with R M Mitchell intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (instructed by the Crown Solicitor for Western Australia)
B M Selway QC with J P Gill intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (instructed by the Crown Solicitor for South Australia) and also intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania (instructed by the Crown Solicitor for Tasmania)
J J Spigelman QC with L S Katz SC intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales (instructed by the Crown Solicitor for New South Wales)
Notice: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Gould v Brown
Constitutional law - Cross-vesting of federal, State and Territory jurisdiction - State law vesting jurisdiction in Federal Court to order winding-up of company - Whether State has power to confer State jurisdiction on federal courts - Federal law enabling Federal Court to accept vesting of State jurisdiction under State law - Validity of laws - Whether Ch III of the Constitution excludes the vesting of State jurisdiction in federal courts - Conditions under which State jurisdiction may be vested in federal courts.
Constitutional law - Issue of examination orders and examinations summons pursuant to Corporations Law - Validity - Whether exercises of judicial power.
The Constitution, s 51(xxxviii), Ch III, ss 107, 109, 122
BRENNAN CJ AND TOOHEY J. This is an appeal against a judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court (Black CJ,…
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.
Continue reading Gould v Brown
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Gould v Brown [1998] HCA 6
Case
[1998] HCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned an appeal by Gould and others against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose from examination orders and summonses issued under provisions of the Corporations Law. The core of the legal challenge involved the constitutional validity of the cross-vesting of jurisdiction between State and federal courts, specifically concerning the power of a State to confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court.
The High Court was required to determine whether the Australian Constitution, particularly Chapter III, permitted the vesting of State jurisdiction in federal courts. It also had to consider whether the specific provisions of the Corporations Law under which the examination orders were made constituted a valid exercise of judicial power. The Court needed to assess the validity of both the State legislation that purported to vest jurisdiction and the federal legislation that enabled the Federal Court to accept such jurisdiction.
The Court, by majority, found that the relevant provisions of the Corporations Law, when construed in accordance with the applicable State Interpretation Act, were compatible with the conferral of jurisdiction on the Federal Court. It was held that the Federal Court could validly exercise judicial power under these provisions. The Court concluded that the cross-vesting legislation and the examination orders made pursuant to it were constitutional.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
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
BRENNAN CJ
TOOHEY J
GAUDRON J
The arguments on this issue are very finely balanced indeed. Strong reasons can be marshalled for each point of view. However, I agree, for the reasons given by Brennan CJ and Toohey J, that it is possible to select those provisions of ss 596A and 596B of the Corporations Law which are validly picked up by the carefully chosen language of s 7 of the State Act, construed in accordance with the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 31. I therefore agree that, so severed, the provisions sustaining the examination orders made in the present case, were compatible with a jurisdiction conferred on the Federal Court which involved the exercise by that Court of judicial power and nothing else[494].[494] See Re F; Ex parte F (1986) 161 CLR 376 at 384-385 where the relevant authorities are discussed.Conclusion and order Because I reach the conclusion that the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court was correct, it is unnecessary for me to consider an additional submission, advanced on behalf of the State of New South Wales. This was that, in the event that the cross-vesting legislation were held unconstitutional, this Court should, as a matter of practice, adopt measures to delay the making of its orders so as to give an opportunity to the Governments and Parliaments involved to consider remedial legislation to cure the disruption which such a decision would cause in very many cases[495]. In the conclusion which I reach, the cross‑vesting legislation considered in this appeal is valid. So are the orders for the examination of the appellants. The answers given by the Full Court were correct. The appeal from the Full Court's orders should therefore be dismissed with costs.[495] See Northern Pipeline Co v Marathon Pipe Line Co 458 US 50 at 88-89 (1982); Re Language Rights under Manitoba Act, 1870 (1985) 19 DLR (4th) 1 at 46; Bilodeau v Attorney-General of Manitoba (1986) 27 DLR (4th) 39 at 46.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by:
BRENNAN CJ,
TOOHEY J,
GAUDRON J
Following amendment of the Corporations Act (Cth), each of the States and the Northern Territory enacted legislation making the Corporations Law applicable as a law of and for that State or Territory ("the counterpart legislation")[76]. In consequence, the Corporations Law now operates throughout Australia.[76] Section 7 of the Corporations Act of each State and the Northern Territory respectively applies the Corporations Law as set out in s 82 of the Corporations Act (Cth) as a law of that State or the Northern Territory.Jurisdiction with respect to civil matters arising under the Corporations Law By s 51 of the Corporations Act (Cth), jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal Court and on the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories[77] "with respect to civil matters arising under the Corporations Law of the Capital Territory." "Civil matter" is defined in s 50(1) to mean "a matter other than a criminal matter". Jurisdiction with respect to civil matters is also conferred on the Family Court of Australia and State Family Courts by s 51A and, except for superior court matters[78], on lower State and Territory courts by s 51B. And the courts which have jurisdiction under ss 51, 51A and 51B are authorised to transfer proceedings to other courts having jurisdiction under those provisions[79].[77] Note that, by s 51(2), jurisdiction is conferred on the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories "[s]ubject to section 9 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977".[78] The expression "superior court matter" is defined in s 50(1) of the Corporations Act (Cth) to mean "a civil matter that the Corporations Law clearly intends (for example, by use of the expression 'the Court') to be dealt with only by a superior court."[79] See ss 53, 53A, 53AA, 53B and 53C. The counterpart legislation confers jurisdiction with respect to civil matters arising under the Corporations Law of the States and the Northern Territory in much the same way as jurisdiction is conferred by the Corporations Act (Cth). Thus, for example, s 42(1) of the Corporations (New South Wales) Act 1990 (NSW) ("the Corporations (NSW) Act") provides:"... jurisdiction is conferred on the Supreme Court of New South Wales and of each other State[80] and the Capital Territory with respect to civil matters arising under the Corporations Law of New South Wales."And s 42(3) provides:" Jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal Court with respect to civil matters arising under the Corporations Law of New South Wales."There are also provisions conferring jurisdiction on the Family Court and State Family Courts and, except for superior court matters, on the lower courts of the States and Territories[81]. Additionally, provision is made for the transfer of proceedings from one court to another[82]. Again, identical provision is made in the legislation of the other States and the Northern Territory.[80] "State" is defined in s 3 of that Act to include the Northern Territory.[81] Sections 42A and 42B respectively.[82] Sections 44, 44A, 44AA, 44B and 44C.