Singh v Khan

The Court of Appeal considered objections to the competency of an appeal brought by Mr. Singh against orders made by a judge of the Supreme Court in proceedings against Mr. Khan. The central dispute concerned whether the appeal lay to the Court of Appeal or the Federal Court, and whether leave to appeal was required.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were: (1) whether the Supreme Court judge had exercised cross-vested jurisdiction, thereby requiring appeals to be heard by the Federal Court; and (2) whether leave to appeal was required from the declaratory orders made by the primary judge.

Brereton JA held that the Supreme Court judge had not been exercising cross-vested jurisdiction. While the appellant had become bankrupt after commencing proceedings, and the proceedings could be considered a "matter arising under" the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth) for the purposes of the *Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987* (Cth), the judge's decision was not predicated on the exercise of cross-vested jurisdiction. The judge's power to make the orders stemmed from the Supreme Court's inherent jurisdiction. Furthermore, the declaratory orders made by the primary judge were considered interlocutory for the purposes of an appeal, meaning that leave to appeal was required.

Consequently, the Court ordered that unless the appellant filed an application for leave to appeal, including for an extension of time, by 3 December 2021, the appeal would be dismissed with costs. The proceedings were adjourned for further directions.