Lockhart & Anor v NEC Information Systems Australia Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicants, Frank Iveson Lockhart and Jan Gregory Paul Kelly, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The respondents were NEC Information Systems Australia Pty Ltd and Amicron Computer Services Pty Ltd (in provisional liquidation), represented by a receiver and manager. The core dispute involved the jurisdiction of the New South Wales Court of Appeal to hear an appeal under cross-vesting legislation after a proceeding had been transferred from the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, the applicants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the New South Wales Court of Appeal to entertain an appeal under the provisions of the cross-vesting legislation, both State and Commonwealth, once a proceeding had been transferred. Secondly, a related issue arose concerning the validity of an appointment of multiple receivers and managers. Specifically, the applicants argued that if the cross-vesting legislation did not grant the Court of Appeal jurisdiction in such circumstances, then the consequence of a joint and several appointment of receivers and managers, on the facts of this case, would render the appointment invalid.

The Court noted that special leave to appeal had already been refused on the secondary issue regarding the validity of the appointment of multiple receivers and managers. This refusal was motivated by the Court's prior decision in *Kerry Lowe*, where it was held that the question of whether a power to appoint multiple receivers and managers was a power to do so jointly or severally was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant special leave. In that context, the Court had indicated that such an appointment might be severable. However, the applicants contended that in the present case, severance was not possible, and the facts were more akin to those where courts had found such appointments to be invalid. The primary focus of the application for special leave was therefore on the jurisdictional question concerning the cross-vesting legislation.