HBSY Pty Ltd v Lewis

The High Court of Australia considered an application for writs of certiorari and mandamus concerning a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, HBSY Pty Ltd, had initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, relying on section 153 of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth). The Full Court of the Federal Court had dismissed the plaintiff's subsequent appeal from the Supreme Court's judgment, finding the appeal incompetent.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Full Court of the Federal Court possessed the federal appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where that decision involved a matter arising under the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth). This involved an examination of the interplay between section 7(5) of the *Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987* (Cth) and section 24(1)(c) of the *Federal Court of Australia Act 1976* (Cth).

The High Court reasoned that section 7(5)(a) of the *Cross-vesting Act*, when purposively construed, neither conferred federal appellate jurisdiction nor authorised the institution of an appeal in a manner that would attract federal appellate jurisdiction. Instead, the provision was found to regulate the exercise of existing federal appellate jurisdiction. It restricts appeals from State Supreme Court single-judge decisions to the Full Federal Court only if that court would have had federal appellate jurisdiction to hear such an appeal apart from the *Cross-vesting Act*. The High Court concluded that the appeal in this case, concerning a matter arising under the *Bankruptcy Act*, was not one that the Full Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear independently of the *Cross-vesting Act*.

Consequently, the High Court ordered that a writ of certiorari issue to quash the Full Court's decision, and a writ of mandamus issue directing the Full Court to hear and determine the plaintiff's appeal. The first defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.