Macquarie Bank Limited v Bell - [1999] NSWSC 957

CITATION: Macquarie Bank Limited v. Bell & Anor. [1999] NSWSC 957

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): No. 2106 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): 25th August 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 September 1999

PARTIES :

Macquarie Bank Limited (Plaintiff)
Michael Charles Bell (First Plaintiff)
Charles Joseph Berg (Second Plaintiff)

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson CJinEq at 1

COUNSEL : Mr. B.W. Collins QC with Mr. A. Bell for Plaintiff
Mr. P. Hall QC with Mr. R. Dalgleish for Defendants

SOLICITORS: Abbott Tout, Sydney for Plaintiff
Hickson Wisewoulds, Sydney for Defendants

CATCHWORDS: COURTS - JURISDICTION - CROSS-VESTING; ESTOPPEL - ISSUE ESTOPPEL. Proceedings were brought in the Industrial Commission and in the Federal Court, both based on the acceptance of employment in reliance on misleading representations. After significant procedural steps in the Commission, the defendant applied to transfer the IRC proceedings to the Supreme Court. HELD that the specialist expertise of the IRC, determination of substantial issues by the IRC, and delay, were factors against transfer; that the question was whether these factors were outweighed by the justice and convenience of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings; that this in turn depended on the likely effect of issue estoppels; that the Federal Court proceedings were unlikely to be significantly shortened by issue estoppels arising from the IRC proceedings; and that transfer should be ordered.

CASES CITED: Heath v. Hanning (1999) NSWSC 719
Blair v. CLurren (1939) 62 CLR 464

DECISION: See pages 12 and 13 of judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORAM: HODGSON, CJ in Eq.
Wednesday 22nd September 1999
NO. 2106 OF 1999
MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED V. BELL & ANOR.
JUDGMENT
1 By its summons in these proceedings filed on 23rd April 1999, the plaintiff (which I will call "Macquarie") seeks an order that proceedings No.6793 of 1997 and No.6794 of 1997 in the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW be removed to this Court pursuant to s.8 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987. Those proceedings were brought respectively by the first defendant Mr. Bell and the second defendant Mr. Berg against Macquarie, and also against a Hong Kong company Macquarie International Capital Markets Limited (which I will call "Macquarie International"); but for reasons which will appear below, removal is sought of the proceedings only in so far as they concern Macquarie. 2 The summons also sought removal to this Court of proceedings No.NG1042 of 1997 in the Federal Court of Australia, being proceedings brought by Messrs. Bell and Berg against Macquarie and Macquarie International. However, it is plain that this Court cannot make such an order.

HISTORY

3 I will begin with a brief outline of the history of those other proceedings. 4 On 5th December 1997, Messrs. Bell and Berg filed an Application and Statement of Claim in the Federal Court. In short, they claimed damages and/or an account of profits on the basis that Macquarie had made a series of representations to them as to the benefits they would receive from a business venture in Asia, in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Macquarie Bank Limited v Bell and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] NSWSC 957
Decision Date: 22 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Macquarie Bank Limited brought proceedings against Bell in the Industrial Relations Commission and subsequently in the Federal Court. The basis of the claim was that Bell had accepted employment under misleading representations. After a series of procedural steps in the Commission, Bell applied to transfer the proceedings from the Commission to the Supreme Court. The primary consideration for the court was whether the proceedings should be transferred from the Industrial Relations Commission to the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the court included whether the transfer of the case from the Industrial Relations Commission to the Supreme Court was appropriate. The court had to weigh factors such as the specialist expertise of the Commission, the determination of substantial issues by the Commission, and any potential delays against the benefits of avoiding multiple proceedings. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the likely effect of any issue estoppels that could arise from the Industrial Relations Commission proceedings on the Federal Court proceedings. This included determining whether the Federal Court proceedings would be significantly shortened by such estoppels.

The court found that while the specialist expertise of the Commission, the determination of substantial issues by the Commission, and potential delays were factors against transfer, these considerations needed to be balanced against the justice and convenience of avoiding multiple proceedings. The court concluded that the likelihood of the Federal Court proceedings being significantly shortened by any issue estoppels arising from the Industrial Relations Commission proceedings was minimal. Therefore, the court ordered the transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court.

The court's final orders were that the proceedings should be transferred from the Industrial Relations Commission to the Supreme Court, recognising the minimal impact of issue estoppels on the Federal Court proceedings and the overall convenience of avoiding multiple proceedings.

Orders