Merrifield Corporation Pty Ltd v FAL Mickleham (No 1)

The case of Merrifield Corporation Pty Ltd v FAL Mickleham (No 1) involved the plaintiff, Merrifield Corporation, seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant against the defendant, FAL Mickleham. The dispute centred on the enforceability of a covenant that restricted the sale of land in a particular area. FAL Mickleham responded by filing a counterclaim, arguing that if the covenant had the effect of restricting competition, it contravened section 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The crux of the legal issues revolved around whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear a matter that raised the question of a breach of section 45, and if the matter qualified as a 'special federal matter' under the relevant legislative framework.

The court needed to determine the jurisdictional scope of the Supreme Court to hear claims involving potential breaches of the Competition and Consumer Act. The key legal question was whether the matter was a 'special federal matter' as defined by the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) and (Vic). The court considered whether the matter involved a question of law that would be more appropriately resolved by the federal court. The court also examined the criteria for determining 'special reasons' that could justify the Supreme Court exercising its jurisdiction over the matter.

In its reasoning, the court found that the issue of whether the restrictive covenant contravened section 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act was indeed a matter of federal law. The court noted that the potential contravention of competition laws was a significant factor in determining whether the matter was a 'special federal matter'. The court concluded that there were special reasons to allow the Supreme Court to hear the matter, primarily due to the complex interplay between property law and competition law. Consequently, the court ordered that the matter should proceed in the Supreme Court.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the restrictive covenant was ineffective and unenforceable if it contravened section 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act. The court also ordered that the matter would be determined by the Supreme Court, recognising the special reasons that justified its jurisdiction over the complex legal issues at hand.