Singapore Liason Pty Ltd v Coote

[1999] FCA 1372

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singapore Liason Pty Ltd v Coote [1999] FCA 1372

CORPORATIONS LAW - cross-vesting - jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

Corporations Law s 459G
Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) s 11

Wakim, Re;  Ex parte McNally [1999] HCA 27

Welltina Pty Ltd v Mamone [1999] FCA 905
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Yandal Gold Holdings Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 567

SINGAPORE LIASON PTY LTD v JOHN HERBERT COOTE AND DIANE NOLA COOTE

No Q219 of 1999

COOPER J

BRISBANE

15 SEPTEMBER 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q219 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	SINGAPORE LIASON PTY LTD (ACN 068 427 172) Applicant
AND:	JOHN HERBERT COOTE AND DIANE NOLA COOTE Respondent
JUDGE:	COOPER J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 SEPTEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application is dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q219 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	SINGAPORE LIASON PTY LTD (ACN 068 427 172) Applicant
AND:	JOHN HERBERT COOTE AND DIANE NOLA COOTE Respondent

JUDGE:	COOPER J
DATE:	15 SEPTEMBER 1999
PLACE:	BRISBANE

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by Singapore Liason Pty Ltd under s 459G of the Corporations Law for an order that a statutory demand served on it by the respondents, John and Diane Coote, be set aside. The respondents submit this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application consequent upon the decision of the High Court in Re Wakim;  Ex parte McNally [1999] HCA 27. Such a view as to lack of jurisdiction appears to be well-founded. See the decisions of Finkelstein J in Welltina Pty Ltd v Mamone [1999] FCA 905 and the decision of Merkel J in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Yandal Gold Holdings Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 567.

2. The decision in Yandal did not concern the strike out of a statutory demand but it dealt with the question as to whether or not the pendant jurisdiction remained in relation to Corporations Law matters. Merkel J was of the view that it did. In the case presently before me, there was no submission seriously raising the pendant jurisdiction of the Court by reference to proceedings instituted against the applicant by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. I am satisfied in the circumstances that absent a submission to that effect, the matter ought to be dealt with on the basis that it stands purely as an unassociated application to set aside the statutory demand. On that basis I am satisfied I have no jurisdiction to entertain it.

3. The question arises as to what course I should take in relation to the proceedings, having regard to the provisions of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (Qld). It is appropriate, in my view, that I make a “relevant order” so that the applicant may take such steps as it may be advised in the Supreme Court of Queensland to seek to obtain from that Court an order setting aside the statutory demand. It has been submitted by the solicitor for the applicant that I ought to stay rather than dismiss the proceedings. I am not inclined to follow that course. That is because the proceedings would never be resolved in this Court and it is unsatisfactory that they simply lie dormant and unresolved.

4. Accordingly, I make an order dismissing the application on the basis that this Court has no jurisdiction, the matter being properly a State matter. By so doing, I intend thereby to make a “relevant order” within the meaning of that term as defined in s 11(1) of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (Qld).

5. In my view, costs should follow the event.  I order that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed if not agreed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Cooper.

Associate:

Dated:             15 September 1999

Solicitor for the Applicant:	Michael Ohlson
Counsel for the Respondent:	D Savage
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Bells Solicitors
Date of Hearing:	15 September 1999
Date of Judgment:	15 September 1999