Reported Decision:
(2002) 55 NSWLR 320
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Resarta Pty Ltd v Finemore [2002] NSWCA 250 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40254/02 HEARING DATE(S): 24/07/2002 JUDGMENT DATE:
28 August 2002PARTIES :
Resarta Pty Ltd v Ronald Stanley FinemoreJUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Giles JA at 40; Foster AJA at 41
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :6082/01 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Einstein J
COUNSEL: A C Archibald QC / P.R. Whitford - Appellant
Andrew S. Bell - RespondentSOLICITORS: Clayton Utz - Appellant
Atanaskovic Hartnell - RespondentCATCHWORDS: CROSS-VESTING - Industrial Commission of New South Wales - proceedings alleging that contract unfair - whether jurisdiction to cross-vest - "State matters" - non-judicial power. - CROSS-VESTING - Industrial Commission of New South Wales - proceedings alleging that contract unfair - exercise of discretion to cross-vest - whether in interests of justice to cross-vest - senior executive - forensic advantage - expense - overlap between proceedings - Victorian Supreme Court only court able to deal with all issues between parties. - "D" LEGISLATION CITED: Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987(NSW)
Supreme Court Rules
Industrial Relations Act 1991
Industrial Relations Act 1996
Industrial Arbitration Act 1940
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Trade Practices Act 1974
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic)CASES CITED: Minproc Ltd v Killinger, [1999] NSWSC 564
Winron Pty Ltd v Shell Company of Australia Ltd (1996) 66 IR 64
Bruning v Kingmill (Australia) Pty Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 180, 182.
Wood v Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Ltd (unreported, 28 October 1993)
Heath Group Australasia Pty Ltd v Hanning (1999) NSWSC 719.
Macquarie Bank Ltd v Bell & Anor (1999) NSWSC 957.
Goodwin v Phillips (1908) 7 CLR 1 pp 7,10,11,14&15
Walker v Industrial Court of NSW & Anor (1994) 53 IR 121
Re Wakim: ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511
Bankinvest AG v Seabrook & Ors (1988) 14 NSWLR 711 at 713
James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd v Barry (2000) 50 NSWLR 357
Minister for Youth & Community Services v Health & Research Employees' Association of Australia, NSW Branch (1987) 10 NSWLR 43 at 559-560
Visalli v Southwell (1988) 12 NSWLR 502 at 510
Precision Data Holdings Ltd v Wills (1991) 173 CLR 167 at 190-191
The Queen v Joske; Ex parte Shop Distributive & Allied Employers Association (1976) 135 CLR 194 at 215-218
King v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union (2001) 109 FCR 447 at [45-55]
Gould v Brown (1998) 193 CLR 346
R v Porter [2001] 53 NSWLR 354
Premier Sports Australia Pty Ltd v Dodds [2001] NSWSC 707DECISION: Make orders as sought in Summons (refer para 41); Respondent pay the costs of the proceedings in this Court and in the Court below.
CA 40254/02
August, 2002SPIGELMAN CJ
GILES JA
FOSTER AJA
RESARTA PTY LIMITED & 2 ORS v RONALD STANLEY FINEMORE
Judgment
1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I have had the benefit of reading…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Resarta Pty Ltd v Finemore 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2002] NSWCA 250
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Resarta Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought to cross-vest proceedings from the Industrial Commission of New South Wales to the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute concerned allegations that a contract was unfair, and the applicant contended that the Supreme Court of Victoria was the only court capable of resolving all the issues between the parties. The proceedings were heard by Spigelman CJ, Giles JA, and Foster AJA.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Industrial Commission of New South Wales possessed the jurisdiction to cross-vest proceedings, particularly concerning "State matters" and the exercise of non-judicial power. Furthermore, the court was required to determine whether, in the exercise of its discretion, it was in the interests of justice to cross-vest the proceedings, considering factors such as the forensic advantage to the senior executive, the expense involved, and the overlap between the proceedings.
The court reasoned that the Supreme Court of Victoria was the only forum that could comprehensively address all the disputes between the parties. This conclusion was informed by considerations of forensic advantage, the potential for significant expense, and the need to avoid an overlap of proceedings. The court ultimately found that it was in the interests of justice to grant the cross-vesting orders sought.
The court made the orders as sought in the Summons and ordered that the respondent pay the costs of the proceedings in both the Supreme Court and the court below.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Industrial Commission of New South Wales possessed the jurisdiction to cross-vest proceedings, particularly concerning "State matters" and the exercise of non-judicial power. Furthermore, the court was required to determine whether, in the exercise of its discretion, it was in the interests of justice to cross-vest the proceedings, considering factors such as the forensic advantage to the senior executive, the expense involved, and the overlap between the proceedings.
The court reasoned that the Supreme Court of Victoria was the only forum that could comprehensively address all the disputes between the parties. This conclusion was informed by considerations of forensic advantage, the potential for significant expense, and the need to avoid an overlap of proceedings. The court ultimately found that it was in the interests of justice to grant the cross-vesting orders sought.
The court made the orders as sought in the Summons and ordered that the respondent pay the costs of the proceedings in both the Supreme Court and the court below.
Orders
Orders of the court
Make orders as sought in Summons (refer para 41); Respondent pay the costs of the proceedings in this Court and in the Court below.
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.