Hardwick, G.E. v North West Country Credit Union Co-operative Ltd

[1994] FCA 342

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

B E T W E E N :

GEORGE ERNEST HARDWICK AND ANOTHER

Applicants

A N D :

NORTH WEST COUNTRY CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED

Respondent

COURT :	NORTHROP J
PLACE :	MELBOURNE
m:	3 MAY 1994

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter the respondent is seeking an order under

subsection 5 ( 4 ) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross VestinaL
Act 1 9 8 7 that the matter be cross vested to the Supreme Court
of Victoria. During the course of submissions the Court drew
attention to the fact that under the statement of claim a very
small item only is said to be based upon the Trade Practices

relation to a possible subdivision of the land and the action

Act (Cth), the damages on that aspect being limited to $1 ,115
when the total amount of the claim is well over half a million

dollars.

The main cause of action alleged by the applicants

appears to be based upon unconscionable conduct by the
respondent in relation to dealings with land owned by the
applicants and events which followed the issuing of a writ of
possession out of Supreme Court proceedings and also in

of the respondent arising therefrom.

The statement of claim even goes to the extent of

asserting that the writ of possession was invalid. This
brings into question its validity even though it might not be
an order of the Supreme Court. But the fact that that issue
has been raised, in my opinion, is a strong reason why this
application should be heard by the Supreme Court.

Having regard to the fact that the major part by far of the application concerns causes of action which are normally heard by the Supreme Court and not by this Court and, in fact,

apart from any accrued jurisdiction could not be heard by this
Court, this is a case where the respondent should succeed. In
my opinion, a case has been made out under paragraphs biii)

and (iii) of subsection S ( 4 ) of the Cross Vestina Act.

It was argued on behalf of the applicants that I should

take into account the fact that there is a possibility that

the applicants could not continue their action if it i, cross

vested to the Supreme Court based on the fact that it was said
that they could not appear in person in the Supreme Court.
From my understanding of the position in Victoria, a
plaintiff, being a natural person, can always appear in
Supreme Court proceedings, the position being different in
relation to corporations where in both the Supreme Court and
this Court a corporation can only appear by a barrister or
solicitor unless leave is granted to the contrary.

I see no reason at all why there should be any difference

in the costs between in the Supreme Court and this Court, and I see no reason at all why the Court should not make an order

cross vesting this matter to the Supreme Court of Victoria.	I
so order, and I reserve the costs of today.
I certify that this and preceding two (2) pages are a true
copy of the Reasons for Judgment of The Honourable M r Justice R.M. Northrop.
ssoiate	: ~h&&++
Date:	2 m.