Shields v Williams

Case [2019] FCA 413

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Shields v Williams [2019] FCA 413

File number(s): QUD 53 of 2019
Judge(s): DERRINGTON J
Date of judgment: 22 March 2019
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for transfer of defamation proceedings from Federal Court to Supreme Court of Queensland – where both parties consent
Legislation:

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth)

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1993 (ACT)
Cases cited:

Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510

Amalia Investments Ltd v Virgtel Global Networks NV (2011) 198 FCR 248

Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 14 NSWLR 711

Central Queensland Development Corporation Pty Ltd (formerly Bluechip Development Corporation (Gladstone) Pty Ltd) v BMT & Assoc Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 195

Crosby v Kelly (2012) 203 FCR 451

Mansell v Cumming (1989) 86 ALR 637

Pittini v Metcash Food and Grocery Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 80
Date of hearing: 22 March 2019
Registry: Queensland
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 9
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr H Clift
Solicitor for the Applicant: Lember & Williams
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr MP Deed of Cranston McEachern

ORDERS

QUD 53 of 2019
BETWEEN:

ERIC CLARENCE SHIELDS

Applicant
AND:

RICHARD ALAN WILLIAMS

Respondent

JUDGE:

DERRINGTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 MARCH 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Proceeding QUD53/2019 in this Court be transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland. 

2.Costs of the proceedings up to the date of transfer be costs in the cause.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DERRINGTON J:

  1. This is an application for an order transferring the present proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland.  The proceeding is an action for defamation, and both parties consent to its transfer.  It was commenced by an originating application filed on 16 January 2019.  In paragraph 3 of the statement of claim filed with the originating application, the applicant pleads that various publications on Facebook were made in, amongst other places, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland. 

  2. The Federal Court has jurisdiction in proceedings for defamation occurring in the Australian Capital Territory by operation of various legislative provisions referred to in Crosby v Kelly (2012) 203 FCR 451. Relevantly, that analysis requires the operation of, amongst various other enactments, section 4 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1993 (ACT).

  3. If the jurisdiction of this Court were not regularly invoked, it has been said that there would be no jurisdiction to make an order for transfer:  Amalia Investments Ltd v Virgtel Global Networks NV (2011) 198 FCR 248. However, although the defence filed denies publication in the Australian Capital Territory as pleaded in paragraph 3, “[i]t is sufficient that the moving party claims that he or she has a legal remedy in the court where the proceedings have been commenced to enforce the right, duty or liability in question”: Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510, 528 [32].

  4. The order for a transfer…

Continue reading Shields v Williams

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Shields v Williams [2019] FCA 413
Case
[2019] FCA 413
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Shields v Williams involved an application by the plaintiff, Mr. Shields, to transfer defamation proceedings from the Federal Court to the Supreme Court of Queensland. Both parties consented to the transfer, simplifying the jurisdictional issue at hand. The core of the dispute rested on defamatory statements made by the defendant, Mr. Williams, which allegedly harmed Mr. Shields' reputation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the transfer of the proceedings from the Federal Court to the Supreme Court of Queensland was appropriate, given the consent of both parties. The court needed to consider the precedents and procedural rules governing such transfers, including the Federal Court Rules 2011 and any relevant jurisdictional principles. The court also had to ensure that the transfer would not prejudice either party and that it was in the interests of justice to allow the transfer.

The court found that, given the consent of both parties, the transfer was permissible under the Federal Court Rules 2011. The court confirmed that the transfer would not prejudice either party and that it was appropriate to facilitate the efficient resolution of the proceedings. Consequently, the court granted the application for transfer, ordering that the proceeding QUD53/2019 be transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland. Additionally, the court ruled that the costs of the proceedings up to the date of transfer would be costs in the cause, in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Proceeding QUD53/2019 in this Court be transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland.

2. Costs of the proceedings up to the date of transfer be costs in the cause.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.