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

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.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hardwick v North West Country Credit Union Co-operative Ltd, the applicants, George Ernest Hardwick and another, sought an order from the Federal Court of Australia to cross vest the matter to the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicants were seeking relief based on unconscionable conduct by the respondent, the North West Country Credit Union Co-operative Ltd, in relation to dealings with land owned by the applicants. The applicants also questioned the validity of a writ of possession issued out of Supreme Court proceedings. The dispute involved claims for significant damages, with only a minor portion being related to the Trade Practices Act.

The legal issue before the court was whether the matter should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987. The court considered whether the primary causes of action were of a type typically heard by the Supreme Court and not by the Federal Court, and whether the applicants' claims predominantly fell under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The court also examined whether the applicants could appear in person in the Supreme Court, as argued by the applicants' counsel.

The court found that the majority of the claims in the applicants' statement of claim were of a type that would normally be heard by the Supreme Court, including claims for unconscionable conduct and questioning the validity of a Supreme Court order. The court determined that the matter should indeed be transferred to the Supreme Court, as the primary causes of action were not within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The court also noted that there was no significant difference in costs between the two courts and found no reason to deny the cross-vesting application. The court made an order cross vesting the matter to the Supreme Court of Victoria, reserving the costs of the day.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

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.