Tzovaras v Williams

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Tzovaras v Williams [2018] NSWDC 275
Hearing dates:	21 September 2018
Date of orders:	27 September 2018
Decision date:	27 September 2018
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Russell SC DCJ
Decision:	(1)   I find that the District Court of NSW does not have jurisdiction in these proceedings.
Catchwords:	JURISDICTION - s 44 District Court Act 1973 - s 53 Supreme Court Act 1970 - Supreme Court Rules 1970 - whether or not the proceedings arose out of a “commercial transaction” within the meaning of r 14.2(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Rules as at 2 February 1998 - consideration of the phrase “commercial transactions” – whether proceedings for monies owing under a Deed arise out of a “commercial transaction” – analysis of Statement of Claim to determine whether proceedings arise out of a “commercial transaction”.
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 District Court Act 1973 Supreme Court Act 1970 Supreme Court Rules 1970
Cases Cited:	Commonwealth Bank of Australia v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2018] NSWSC 1440 Forsyth v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 231 CLR 531 May v Brahmbhatt [2013] NSWCA 209 Mega-Top Cargo Pty Limited v Moneytech Services Pty Limited [2015] NSWCA 402 New South Wales Land & Housing Corporation v Quinn [2016] NSWCA 338 Nova 96.9 Pty Limited v Natvia Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 1288 NRMA Insurance Limited v Flanagan [1982] 1 NSWLR 585 Sapphire Suite Pty Limited v Bellini Lounge Pty Limited [2018] NSWDC 160 The NTF Group Pty Limited v P A Putney Finances Australia Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 1194 Visy Industries USA Pty Limited v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2011) 284 ALR 455
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Ted Dorotheos Tzovaras (Plaintiff) Gary Alexander Williams (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: T Tzovaras Self-represented (solicitor) (Plaintiff) M Wells (Defendant)   Solicitors: T D Tzovaras (Plaintiff) Byrnes Legal
File Number(s):	2017/345804

Judgment

Introduction

1. The parties appeared before me on 21 September 2018 to argue two Notices of Motion. However, the defendant argued a preliminary point, being that the District Court had no jurisdiction to hear these proceedings or any motion in them.

2. It was agreed by the parties that I should determine that preliminary point and so I heard submissions only on the question of jurisdiction and deferred dealing with both motions.

The Jurisdiction Issue

3. Section 44 of the District Court Act 1973 gives the District Court jurisdiction over certain civil matters. Section 44(1) provides:

“Subject to this Act, the Court has jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the following actions:

(a)   any action of a kind:

(i)   which, if brought in the Supreme Court, would be assigned to the Common Law Division of that Court, and

(ii)   in which the amount (if any) claimed does not exceed the Court’s jurisdictional limit, whether on a balance of account or after an admitted set-off or otherwise,

other than an action referred to in paragraph (d) and (e)

…”

4. The relevant date for determining whether or not a matter would have been assigned to the…