Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Katherine Jackson v Peter James Mylan [2012] NSWSC 552 Hearing dates: 21 May 2012 Decision date: 23 May 2012 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: S. G. Campbell J Decision: See paragraph 48
Catchwords: PROCEDURE - cross-vesting application - Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) - Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) - order seeking removal of proceedings from Industrial Court of New South Wales to Supreme Court of New South Wales - order seeking transfer of proceedings from Supreme Court of New South Wales to Federal Court of Australia - whether it is more appropriate that the State proceeding be determined by the Federal Court - whether Federal Court has accrued jurisdiction to determine the proceeding in the exercise of Federal jurisdiction - whether it is in the interests of justice to transfer the matter - orders for transfer made. Legislation Cited: Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth)
Federal Courts (Consequential Provisions) Act 2000 No 80 (NSW)
Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW)
Industrial Relations Amendment (Industrial Organisations) Act 2012
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW)Cases Cited: ASIC v. Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 204 CLR 559
Bankinvest AG v. Seabrook (1988) 14 NSWLR 711
BHP Billiton Ltd v. Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400
Deputy Commissioner Taxation v Westpac (1987) 72 ALR 634
East v Coulson (2010) 244 FLR 1
Mellifont v Attorney-General (Qld) (1991) 173 CLR 289
Moore v. Doyle (1969) 15 FLR 59
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511
Valceski v. Valceski (2007) 70 NSWLR 36
Woollahra Municipal Council v. Jeffries [1981] 1 NSWLR 377Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Katherine Jackson (Plaintiff)
Peter James Mylan (First Defendant) and 10 Ors.Representation: Counsel:
Mr. Assaf (Plaintiff)
Mr Crawshaw S.C. with Mr J. Murphy (First and Second defendants)
Mr. Richard Lancaster S.C. with Mr. Michael Easton (Third Defendant)
Mr. S. Price (Solicitor) (Fourth Defendant)
Solicitors:
Harmers Workplace Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Slater and Gordon Lawyers (First and Second Defendants)
Crown Solicitor (Third Defendant)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Fourth Defendant)
Holding Redlich Lawyers (Fifth to Eleventh Defendants)
File Number(s): 2012/00159193-1
Judgment
In circumstances of some urgency, the plaintiff applies by summons for orders removing proceedings no. IRC 580 of 2012 from the Industrial Court of New South Wales to this Court, and orders transferring those proceedings to the Federal Court of Australia, with a view to having the proceedings joined with proceedings in that Court, being matters numbered NSD 579 of 2012, NSD 613 of 2012 and NSD 621 of 2012.
The summons relies on each of Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) and the cognate Commonwealth legislation of the same title and year. However, before me argument was addressed by reference to the provisions of the State legislation only.
The reason for the urgency is that the Industrial Court proceedings have been fixed for hearing for five days before the President, Justice Boland, commencing on 28th May 2012, and…
Continue reading Katherine Jackson v Peter James Mylan
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Katherine Jackson v Peter James Mylan [2012] NSWSC 552
- Case
- [2012] NSWSC 552
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court meticulously examined the relevant provisions of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) and the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth). It assessed the circumstances under which the transfer of proceedings could be justified, considering the nature of the claims, the parties involved, and the legal principles guiding such transfers. The court determined that the Federal Court had the necessary jurisdiction and that the transfer was warranted to ensure the matter was resolved efficiently and justly.
Consequently, the court made orders for the transfer of the proceedings from the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the Federal Court of Australia, finding that this was in the best interests of justice. The decision underscores the importance of assessing jurisdictional matters carefully and highlights the procedural mechanisms available for transferring proceedings between different courts to ensure the most appropriate judicial forum is utilized.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.