Mao v AMP Superannuation Limited & Anor Mao v BT Funds Management Limited

In the case of Mao v AMP Superannuation Limited & Anor and Mao v BT Funds Management Limited & Anor, the applicant, Mao, sought to remove proceedings from the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, arguing they were pending for the purposes of section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903. The application was made to the High Court of Australia, with the proceedings initially identified as S242/2019 and S243/2019. The respondents, AMP Superannuation Limited and BT Funds Management Limited, contested the applicant's claim, asserting that no such proceedings were actually pending. The central legal issue before the Court was whether the proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales qualified as "pending" under the specified statutory provision, thereby justifying their removal to the High Court.

The Court examined the definitions and criteria set forth in section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 to determine whether the proceedings were indeed "pending" at the time of Mao's application. The Court found that there were no active proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales that met the statutory criteria for being "pending". Consequently, the application to remove the proceedings to the High Court was without merit. The Court also noted that in S242/2019, the proceedings were dismissed by consent with no order as to costs, while in S243/2019, the proceedings were discontinued. Given these findings, the Court concluded that the applications should be dismissed with costs.

The High Court, in its ruling, directed that the Registrar should draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the applications with costs. This decision underscores the importance of meeting the statutory criteria for proceedings to be considered "pending" under the Judiciary Act 1903, and the Court's rigorous application of these criteria. The final orders reflect the Court's determination that the proceedings were not properly categorised as pending and, as such, the removal applications were unwarranted.