Maisey, Glenn Wayne v First Coast Pty Ltd - [1984] FCA 20

Re: GLENN WAYNE MAISEY and JACQUELINE ANNETTE MAISEY;
ELIZABETH SMEDLEY and NICK JAMES PTY. LIMITED
And: FIRST COAST PTY LTD; SURETY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD; MUDGEERABA VILLAGE
ESTATES PTY LTD; ZOLENE ELIZABETH PERRY; STEPHEN JOSEPH ENGLISH; MUDGEERABA
VILLAGE ESTATES PTY LTD; ZOLENE ELIZABETH PERRY; FIRST COAST PTY LTD; SURETY
INVESTMENTS PTY LTD and DAVID WHITE
No. Qld G109, G110 and G112 of 1983
(1984) ATPR para 40-442 / 1 FCR 316
Jurisdiction of Federal Court - High Court and Federal Court

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Fitzgerald J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Jurisdiction of Federal Court - exercise of Court's discretion to entertain action - claims against all respondents related to single set of associated transactions - claims against fifth respondent wholly divorced from claims against other respondents - entirely separate and severable non-federal controversy - potential disadvantages to fifth respondent.

High Court and Federal Court - Jurisdiction of Federal Court - Exercise of court's discretion to entertain action - Claims against all respondents related to single set of associated transactions - Claims against fifth respondent wholly divorced from claims against other respondents - Entirely separate and severable non-federal controversy - Potential disadvantages to fifth respondent - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s.52.

HEADNOTE

Three proceedings were commenced by different applicants against the same five respondents. The claims against the first four respondents were based on misleading and deceptive conduct under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), deceit and negligent misstatement. The claims against the fifth respondent, a solicitor, were for breach of duty and breach of contract. The fifth respondent applied to have the proceedings against him dismissed on grounds that thet were outside the jurisdiction of the court, or alternatively in the exercise of the court's discretion to decline jurisdiction. The acts, omissions and state of mind relied on as against the fifth defendant were different in form and unconnected with those against the other respondents.

Held: (1) That the causes of action against the fifth respondent were both in nature and in most of their constituent elements quite separate and distinct from those pleaded against the other respondents in that:

(a) the acts, omissions and state of mind relied upon were erent entirely different from and unconnected with those relied on against other respondents; and

(b) the knowledge attributed to the fifth respondent was not alleged to include knowledge of any aspect of the impugned conduct of the others.

(2) That in those circumstances, and there being no overlap of parties between the two sets of claims, and no relationship between the fifth respondent and the other respondents, the claims against the fifth respondent could not properly be regarded as other than an entirely separate and severable non-federal controversy.

(3) That the potential disadvantages to the fifth respondent far outweighed any legitimate advantage that might accrue to the applicants if they were permitted to proceed with the claims as joined.

(4) That, therefore, the claims against the fifth respondent should be dismissed,…

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 Maisey, Glenn Wayne v First Coast Pty Ltd 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: [1984] FCA 20
Decision Date: 21 FEBRUARY 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maisey, Glenn Wayne v First Coast Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff bringing claims against multiple respondents related to a series of associated transactions. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The crux of the litigation was the plaintiff's action against the fifth respondent, which was entirely separate from the claims against the other respondents, constituting a non-federal controversy.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Court had the jurisdiction to hear the claims against the fifth respondent. The court considered whether the claims against the fifth respondent were so distinct and severable from the claims against the other respondents as to warrant the exercise of the court's discretion to entertain the action. The court examined the potential disadvantages that might arise for the fifth respondent if the action was not struck out, including the impact on their rights and the efficiency of the judicial process.

Upon careful consideration, the court determined that the claims against the fifth respondent were indeed separate and severable from the claims against the other respondents. The court found that the potential disadvantages to the fifth respondent, including the implications for their rights and the efficiency of the judicial process, outweighed the benefits of allowing the claims to proceed in the Federal Court. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to strike out the claims against the fifth respondent without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to pursue other appropriate proceedings against them. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the fifth respondent's costs, including reserved costs, if any.

Orders

Orders of the court

In each of Applications G109, G110 and

G112 of 1983, the Application be struck out as against the Fifth Respondent, but without prejudice to the right of the Applicants to commence other appropriate proceedings against the Fifth Respondent.

The Applicants pay to the Fifth

Respondent his taxed costs of each of Applications G109, G110 and G112 of 1983 including reserved costs, if any.

Orders accordingly.

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.