Legal Research
Cases
Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd v Page

Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd v Page

Link copied

Case Copied 7 September 2021 76 min read

Contents

On this page

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd v Page [2021] NSWCA 204
Hearing dates: 07 June 2021
Date of orders: 07 September 2021
Decision date: 07 September 2021
Before: Bell P at [1];
Leeming JA at [85];
Emmett AJA at [151]
Decision:
1.   Grant leave to appeal.
2.   Allow the appeal with costs.
3.   Set aside the orders of Adamson J made on 28 October 2020.
4.   Order that the Summons filed on 11 May 2020 be dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – declaration that court has no jurisdiction to decide claim – claim for death or injury – carriage by air – occurring entirely within New South Wales – where party brought claim under s 5 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1967 (NSW) in the Federal Court – where Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to decide claim – claimant brought claim in the Supreme Court under s 11(2) of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) – Supreme Court claim brought more than two years after relevant carriage by air – whether order of the Federal Court dismissing claim for want of jurisdiction was a “relevant order” within the meaning of s 11(1) of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) – whether claim in the Supreme Court was extinguished by s 34 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Commonwealth and State relations – inconsistency of laws – Supreme Court proceedings pursuant to s 11(2) of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) – where those proceedings are linked to incompetent Federal Court proceedings but operate independently of them – where s 34 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) operates to extinguish any claim for damages under s 5 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1967 (NSW) if not brought within two years after an accident – whether order made under s 11(2) of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) undermined the purpose of s 34 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) – order under s 11(2) not a discretionary extension of time to bring a proceeding otherwise out of time
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – operation of bar – action for compensation for death under s 5 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1967 (NSW) – where s 34 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) provides that the right to damages is extinguished if a party does not bring an action within two years of an aviation accident – characterisation of statutory bar – whether s 34 is a “limitation law” within the meaning of s 11(1) of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) – where the law recognises a distinction between the barring of a right of action and its extinguishment
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – contextual approach – context to be considered in the first order – context understood in a broad…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd v Page and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWCA 204
Decision Date: 07 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, considered a dispute between Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd and Ms Page. Ms Page had brought a claim in the Federal Court under section 5 of the *Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1967* (NSW) for death or injury arising from carriage by air entirely within New South Wales. The Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear this claim. Ms Page then commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales under section 11(2) of the *Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999* (NSW), but this claim was brought more than two years after the relevant aviation accident. Sydney Seaplanes sought to have Ms Page's Supreme Court claim dismissed.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether an order of the Federal Court dismissing a claim for want of jurisdiction constituted a "relevant order" within the meaning of section 11(1) of the *Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999* (NSW), and whether Ms Page's claim in the Supreme Court was extinguished by section 34 of the *Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959* (Cth). The Court also considered whether section 34 of the Commonwealth Act was a "limitation law" for the purposes of section 11(1) of the State Act, and whether the Supreme Court proceedings, by potentially allowing a claim otherwise out of time, undermined the purpose of section 34 of the Commonwealth Act.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the *Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999* (NSW) was enacted to remedy the effect of the High Court's decision in *Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally*, which had found that federal courts could not exercise state jurisdiction. The Court adopted a contextual approach to statutory interpretation, considering the legislative purpose and extrinsic materials. It concluded that the phrase "want of jurisdiction" in section 11(1) of the State Act should be interpreted broadly to include situations where the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction due to constitutional limitations, as was the case here. Furthermore, the Court distinguished between a law that bars a right of action and one that extinguishes it, holding that section 34 of the *Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959* (Cth) operates as an extinguishment of the right to damages, not merely a limitation period. Consequently, section 34 was not a "limitation law" as contemplated by section 11(1) of the State Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the primary judge and dismissing Ms Page's Summons.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to appeal.

2. Allow the appeal with costs.

3. Set aside the orders of Adamson J made on 28 October 2020.

4. Order that the Summons filed on 11 May 2020 be dismissed with costs.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd v Page [2021] NSWCA 204
Hearing dates:	07 June 2021
Date of orders:	07 September 2021
Decision date:	07 September 2021
Before:	Bell P at [1]; Leeming JA at [85]; Emmett AJA at [151]
Decision:	1. Grant leave to appeal. 2. Allow the appeal with costs. 3. Set aside the orders of Adamson J made on 28 October 2020. 4. Order that the Summons filed on 11 May 2020 be dismissed with costs.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – declaration that court has no jurisdiction to decide claim – claim for death or injury – carriage by air – occurring entirely within New South Wales – where party brought claim under s 5 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1967 (NSW) in the Federal Court – where Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to decide claim – claimant brought claim in the Supreme Court under s 11(2) of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) – Supreme Court claim brought more than two years after relevant carriage by air – whether order of the Federal Court dismissing claim for want of jurisdiction was a “relevant order” within the meaning of s 11(1) of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) – whether claim in the Supreme Court was extinguished by s 34 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Commonwealth and State relations – inconsistency of laws – Supreme Court proceedings pursuant to s 11(2) of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) – where those proceedings are linked to incompetent Federal Court proceedings but operate independently of them – where s 34 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) operates to extinguish any claim for damages under s 5 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1967 (NSW) if not brought within two years after an accident – whether order made under s 11(2) of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) undermined the purpose of s 34 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) – order under s 11(2) not a discretionary extension of time to bring a proceeding otherwise out of time LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – operation of bar – action for compensation for death under s 5 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1967 (NSW) – where s 34 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) provides that the right to damages is extinguished if a party does not bring an action within two years of an aviation accident – characterisation of statutory bar – whether s 34 is a “limitation law” within the meaning of s 11(1) of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) – where the law recognises a distinction between the barring of a right of action and its extinguishment STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – contextual approach – context to be considered in the first order – context understood in a broad…