Strang v Metropolitan Transport Trust

Serial No B41/1990
List "B"

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Strang v Metropolitan Transport Trust [1990] TASSC 118; B41/1990

PARTIES:  STRANG, Ivan Keith
  v
  METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT TRUST

FILE NO/S:  M83/1990
DELIVERED ON:  28 June 1990
JUDGMENT OF:  Neasey J

Judgment Number: B41/1990
Number of paragraphs: 2

Serial No B41/1990
List "B"
File No M83/1990

IVAN KEITH STRANG v THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT TRUST

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NEASEY J

(Given Orally) 28 June 1990

In my opinion, s64(16) of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 is a general provision which has this effect in relation to the Metropolitan Transport Trust in the present proceedings, that if the Metropolitan Transport Trust is an agent or emanation of the Crown, of which there are strong arguments to indicate it is, nevertheless since the action in question is one which may be taken against the Crown or any agent or emanation of the Crown pursuant to s64(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act and the Metropolitan Transport Trust is an incorporated body and ss66(3), 67, 68 and 69 of the Act have no present application, this action may proceed in any court of competent jurisdiction in exactly the same way as any other action between subject and subject. That is to say in my opinion, the learned commissioner‘s order that the Court of Requests had no jurisdiction is wrong and should be set aside.

There will be an order under s127 of the Local Courts Act. There will be an order for costs to be taxed on the appropriate scale.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ivan Keith Strang filed a claim against the Metropolitan Transport Trust in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute revolves around the jurisdictional authority of the Court of Requests to hear the matter and whether the Trust, potentially an agent or emanation of the Crown, should be subject to the same legal proceedings as other non-Crown entities. The central legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Requests had jurisdiction to hear the case, particularly considering that the Trust might be an agent or emanation of the Crown. Additionally, the court had to determine if the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932, particularly sections 64(16), 66(3), 67, 68, and 69, applied to the Trust in a manner that would affect the proceedings.

The court, presided over by Neasey J, held that the Trust, while potentially an agent or emanation of the Crown, could still be subject to the same legal proceedings as other non-Crown entities if the action could be taken against the Crown or its agents or emanations under section 64(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act. The court concluded that sections 66(3), 67, 68, and 69 did not apply to the Trust, and thus the case could proceed in any court of competent jurisdiction as any other action between subject and subject. The learned commissioner's order that the Court of Requests had no jurisdiction was deemed incorrect and was set aside. The court also ruled that the case could proceed in the Supreme Court, and an order under section 127 of the Local Courts Act would be made, along with an order for costs to be taxed on the appropriate scale.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established