NSW Construction Corporation Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

The case between NSW Construction Corporation Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia involved a dispute regarding the transfer of proceedings from one list to another within the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Initially, the plaintiffs commenced proceedings in the General List of the Common Law Division, alleging various breaches of contract. Following an amendment of the pleadings, the proceedings were transferred by consent to the General List of the Equity Division. Subsequently, the parties agreed that the proceedings should remain in the General List, but the plaintiffs’ solicitors made a unilateral request for reasons to be provided for the dismissal of an application to transfer the proceedings to the Commercial List. The court dismissed the application and declined to provide reasons, and it was also noted that the plaintiffs’ solicitors had sent an email to the judge's chambers without the consent of the defendant, and that the defendant's solicitors were copied in the correspondence for transparency purposes.

The court was required to decide several legal issues. Firstly, it had to determine the principles governing the exercise of discretion in transferring proceedings between different lists within the Supreme Court. Secondly, the court needed to address whether the unilateral request for reasons, made without the consent of the defendant, constituted a valid application for judicial review of the decision to dismiss the transfer application. Finally, the court had to consider the implications of the plaintiffs' solicitors communicating directly with the judge's chambers without the defendant's knowledge and consent.

In its reasoning, the court held that there was no issue of principle in the dismissal of the application for transfer. The court noted that the plaintiffs' solicitors had acted unilaterally in requesting reasons, despite the indication of consent by the parties. The court emphasised the importance of following proper procedures and obtaining consent when making requests to the chambers of a judge. Regarding the email communications, the court found no issue of principle as the defendant's solicitors were copied in the correspondence for transparency. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a valid basis for the court to provide reasons for the dismissal of the transfer application.

The final orders of the court were that the application for transfer to the Commercial List was dismissed and no reasons were to be provided. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' solicitors' unilateral email communications with the judge's chambers did not constitute an issue of principle.