Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM – Federal jurisdiction – Federal Circuit Court has jurisdiction over “matter” that includes family provision claim pending in the Supreme Court of New South Wales – whether in those circumstances the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in relation to the family provision claim – Supreme Court retains State jurisdiction in relation to the family provision claim concurrently with the federal jurisdiction the Federal Circuit Court has in relation to the “matter” that includes the family provision claim.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for determination of separate question – separate question said to arise from proposed amendment to defence – whether leave should be granted to amend defence – whether proposed amendments comply with rules of pleading – application to amend defence not granted.
The respondent’s application for leave to file an amended defence in the form of the draft defence marked “MFI1” is dismissed.
The application in a case filed by the respondent on 28…
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.
Continue reading Taylor v Vivacity Engineering Pty Ltd (No.2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Taylor v Vivacity Engineering Pty Ltd (No.2) [2019] FCCA 2036
Case
[2019] FCCA 2036
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties involved were Taylor and Vivacity Engineering Pty Ltd. The dispute concerned the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of New South Wales in relation to a family provision claim. The matter came before Judge Manousaridis of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Circuit Court possessed jurisdiction over a "matter" that encompassed a family provision claim already pending in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. A secondary issue arose concerning an application to amend the defence, specifically whether leave should be granted for proposed amendments that were alleged to give rise to a separate question.
Judge Manousaridis determined that the Federal Circuit Court did indeed have jurisdiction over the "matter" which included the family provision claim. Crucially, the court held that the Supreme Court of New South Wales retained its State jurisdiction in relation to the family provision claim concurrently with the federal jurisdiction exercised by the Federal Circuit Court. Regarding the application to amend the defence, the court found that the proposed amendments did not comply with the rules of pleading and therefore refused leave to amend.