Saraceni v Jones - [2012] HCA 38

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GUMMOW, HAYNE AND BELL JJ
LUKE SARACENI APPLICANT
AND
MARTIN BRUCE JONES AS RECEIVER
AND MANAGER OF NEWPORT SECURITIES
PTY LTD AND AS AGENT OF THE MORTGAGEE
IN POSSESSION OF 3517 CAVES ROAD,
WILYABRUP & ORS RESPONDENTS
Saraceni v Jones
[2012] HCA 38
7 September 2012
P8/2012
ORDER
Special leave to appeal refused with costs.

Application for special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia
Representation
B W Walker QC with J C Vaughan for the applicant (instructed by Jackson McDonald Lawyers)
D F Jackson QC with T O Prince for the respondents (instructed by Ashurst Australia)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Saraceni v Jones

Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Constitution, Ch III — Sections 596A and 596B of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) confer power upon court exercising federal jurisdiction to order, on application of receiver, examination of person about examinable affairs of corporation – Whether conferral of non‑judicial power.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 596A, 596B.

GUMMOW, HAYNE AND BELL JJ. For the reasons which follow, this application for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia[1] should be refused.
[1]Saraceni v Jones (2012) 287 ALR 551.
This Court often has observed that it is not possible to frame a definition of "judicial power" which is at once exclusive and exhaustive. However, to adopt and adapt what Kitto J said in R v Davison[2], the question which it is sought to agitate in this Court is whether the Constitution requires that the power to take the step necessary to bring about the application of a general law to the particular case is one which cannot be committed to the judiciary. More particularly, on the application of the receiver of a corporation can the Parliament confer upon a court exercising federal jurisdiction the power to make an order under s 596A or s 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("the Corporations Act") for the mandatory examination of a person about the examinable affairs of the corporation? As Kitto J said in Davison[3]:
"Where the action to be taken is of a kind which had come by 1900 to be so consistently regarded as peculiarly appropriate for judicial performance that it then occupied an acknowledged place in the structure of the judicial system, the conclusion, it seems to me, is inevitable that the power to take that action is within the concept of judicial power as the framers of the Constitution must be taken to have understood it."
The Companies Act 1862 (UK) ("the 1862 Act"), which was the model for the companies legislation of the Australian colonies, provided in s 138 that where a company was being wound up voluntarily the liquidator or any contributory might apply to the court having jurisdiction to wind…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Saraceni v Jones

Details

AGLC: Saraceni v Jones [2012] HCA 38
Case: [2012] HCA 38
Decision Date: 7 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered whether sections 596A and 596B of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) conferred a non-judicial power on courts exercising federal jurisdiction. The application for special leave to appeal concerned an order made by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The central legal issue was whether the power granted to a court, upon application by a receiver, to order the examination of a person concerning the examinable affairs of a corporation, was incompatible with Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests the judicial power of the Commonwealth exclusively in the courts.

The High Court refused special leave to appeal. While the reasons for refusal are not detailed in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the Court did not consider the appeal to raise a question of law that warranted further consideration. The application for special leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Special leave to appeal refused with costs.

Application for special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia

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

GUMMOW, HAYNE AND BELL JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GUMMOW, HAYNE AND BELL JJ

Full text does not contain this section.