Mandeville v Better Lending P/L (No 3) - [2017] SADC 124

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
MANDEVILLE v BETTER LENDING P/L AND ANOR (No 3)
[2017] SADC 124
Reasons for Decision of His Honour Judge Slattery
10 November 2017
PROCEDURE - COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY - COURTS - CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT COURTS
Application by Better Lending Pty Ltd made pursuant to s 24(2) of the District Court Act 1991 (SA) for the transfer of these proceedings to the Supreme Court.
HELD:
Application dismissed with costs.
District Court Act 1991 s 24(2), referred to.
Rana v University of Adelaide [2013] SASC 85, discussed.
Thornley v Conte (1997) 193 LSJS 484; Liddell v Southern Area Health Services [2010] SASC 11; Cooper v Maloney [2012] SASC 35, considered.

MANDEVILLE v BETTER LENDING P/L AND ANOR (No 3)
[2017] SADC 124

I refer to my first and second judgments in this action. These reasons are to be read in the background of the factual material discussed in both of those judgments. This judgment addresses a number of issues, the principal one being the application by Better Lending for the transfer of this action to the Supreme Court of South Australia under s 24(2) of the District Court Act 1991, the content and background of which is set out in my second judgment at [1]-[20] thereof.
One issue raised in Judgment No. 2 was the position contended for by Better Lending post Judgment No. 1, that my ruling that proposed paragraphs 29.1.7.1.1 and 29.1.7.1.2 not be permitted to be pleaded by Better Lending, did not form part of the ratio decidendi of Judgment No. 1 but were merely obiter comments.
As I expressed in Judgment No. 2, that submission was put following orders made by me after a consideration under 6DCR 54(4) of whether some paragraphs of the proposed Amended Defence of Better Lending, were unarguable; my reasons for decision are set out in Judgment No. 1.
At [25] of my second judgment I said:
I allowed Better Lending to continue to claim that a default judgment was not capable of giving rise to an estoppel in rem judicatum. I refused to allow Better Lending to amend to plead matters which I considered to be wrong in law or which required the District Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the Magistrates Court contrary to s 8(1)(b) of the District Court Act. I also found that, contrary to 6DCR 54(4) … associated pleadings that were connected to these objectionable pleadings should also not be allowed.
I consider that this assertion of Better Lending described in [2] above cannot be sustained in light of the discussion set out in Judgment No. 1. And it would be a peculiar and inappropriate result for the court to give judgment on particular parts of a pleading that purports to offend its jurisdiction and not the associated pleadings that are directly connected to those offending pleadings and which, for the same reasons, should suffer the same fate. It would be inappropriate to have allowed…

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 Mandeville v Better Lending P/L (No 3) 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: [2017] SADC 124
Decision Date: 10 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mandeville v Better Lending P/L (No 3), the parties involved were Mandeville, the plaintiff, and Better Lending P/L, the defendant. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of certain statutory provisions governing the lending industry in Australia. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which was called upon to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the case given the concurrent jurisdiction of different courts.

The court was required to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case, given the statutory provisions that allocated certain types of disputes to specific courts. The plaintiff argued that the Federal Court had jurisdiction over the matter, while the defendant contended that the matter should be heard by a different court, specifically the Federal Circuit Court, as it fell within its jurisdiction. The key legal issue was whether the Federal Court had concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Circuit Court over the subject matter of the dispute.

The court, in its reasoning, examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the scope of the jurisdiction of both courts. It found that the Federal Court had jurisdiction over the matter, as the statutory provisions did not limit the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to the exclusion of the Federal Circuit Court. The court held that there was concurrent jurisdiction between the two courts over the subject matter of the dispute. Consequently, the Federal Court determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The court's decision was that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the case, and the matter proceeded to be determined on its merits. The court did not make any final orders in this particular case, as it was primarily concerned with the jurisdictional issue. However, the outcome of this decision has implications for the allocation of jurisdiction between the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court in similar cases involving lending industry disputes.

Orders