Residual Assco Group v Spalvins

[2000] HCATrans 209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Adelaide  No A5 of 2000

B e t w e e n -

RESIDUAL ASSCO GROUP LIMITED

Plaintiff

and

JANIS GUNARS SPALVINS

First Defendant

MICHAEL JAMES KENT

Second Defendant

NEIL LESLIE BRANFORD

Third Defendant

KENNETH WILLIAM RUSSELL

Fourth Defendant

MICHAEL STEVENSON GREGG

Fifth Defendant

DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS

Sixth Defendant

DELOITTE ROSS TOHMATSU

Seventh Defendant

Pronouncement of Orders

GLEESON CJ
GAUDRON J
McHUGH J

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 25 MAY 2000, AT 10.18 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

___________________

GLEESON CJ:   This proceeding was heard in Canberra on 11 May 2000 by a Court constituted by Justices Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and myself. It arises out of proceedings instituted in the Federal Court of Australia which were stayed by that Court for want of jurisdiction but which were not otherwise finally determined at trial in that court. There is now pending in the Supreme Court of South Australia an application under section 11 of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA).

Because of the nature of the issues thus presented, the Court is of the opinion that it should now pronounce orders which will dispose of the immediate controversy between the parties to it and publish reasons for its decision later.  Because, however, some of the issues presented by the second and third questions reserved for the consideration of the Court are not issues which must be resolved to determine the immediate controversy between the parties to this proceeding, and are issues which may fall for consideration in other proceedings now pending in this Court, all members of the Court are agreed that the questions in the case stated should be answered as follows:

Question 1. Are section 11 of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA) and rule 123A.05 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of South Australia invalid?

Answer:       No.

Question 2. Are any one or more (and, if so, which) of sections 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA) invalid?

Answer:       Unnecessary to answer.

Question 3. If any of sections 6, 7, 8, 10 or 11 of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA) be invalid, as a consequence thereof, is any other provision thereof (and, if so, which) invalid?

Answer:       Unnecessary to answer.

The first, second and third defendants must pay the plaintiff’s costs of the case stated.

Any other questions of costs in this Court are reserved for the consideration of the single Justice making orders consequential upon the answers to the questions reserved.

I publish our answers and orders.

AT 10.21 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED