Wilson v Chan & Naylor Parramatta Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 49 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Wilson v Chan & Naylor Parramatta Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 213
Hearing dates: 15 July 2020
Decision date: 08 September 2020
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
White JA at [34]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Judicial power — Whether decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal as to its jurisdiction was an exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth – Nature of the anterior jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider its authority to decide

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Judicial power — Whether the Tribunal has power to order costs consequential on a dismissal or transfer of proceedings for want of Federal jurisdiction – Whether power to make such an order outside of the State’s legislative competence to confer on the Tribunal– Whether making such an order would occasion the Tribunal impermissibly exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth

Legislation Cited:

Constitution, Ch III, ss 71, 76

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss Pt 3A, 4, 29, 32, 60, 78

Consumer Claims Act 1998 (NSW), s 7

Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), ss 79E, 79J, 79L

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 43

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 31

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 39, 78A, 78B

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth)

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulation 1994 (Cth)

Cases Cited:

Attorney General for New South Wales v Gatsby (2018) 99 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCA 254

Attorney-General (NSW) v 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 349; 236 ALR 385

Burns v Corbett (2018) 265 CLR 304; [2018] HCA 15

Burns v Corbett; Gaynor v Burns (2017) 96 NSWLR 247; [2017] NSWCA 3

CGU Insurance Ltd v Blakely (2016) 259 CLR 339; [2016] HCA 2

Felton v Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367

Gaynor v Attorney General of New South Wales [2020] NSWCA 48

Gould v Brown (1998) 193 CLR 346; [1998] HCA 6

Khatri v Price (1999) 95 FCR 287; [1999] FCA 1289

LDF Enterprise Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (2017) 95 NSWLR 70; [2017] NSWCA 89

Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (1980) 145 CLR 457

Pezet v Pezet (1946) 47 SR (NSW) 45

Proust v Blake (1989) 17 NSWLR 267

Qantas Airways Limited v Lustig (2015) 228 FCR 148; [2015] FCA 253

R v Coldham; Ex parte Australian Workers’ Union (1983) 153 CLR 415 at 429; [1983] HCA 35

Re Wakim; ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511; [1999] HCA 27

Residual Assco Group Ltd v Spalvins (2000) 202 CLR 629; [2000] HCA 33

State of New South Wales v Kable (2013) 252 CLR 118; [2013] HCA 26

Sunol v Collier (2012) 81 NSWLR 619; [2012] NSWCA 14

The Queen v Murphy (1985) 158 CLR 596; [1985] HCA 50

Wilson v Brisbane; Wilson v Chan & Naylor Parramatta Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1598

Wilson v…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wilson v Chan & Naylor Parramatta Pty Ltd 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
[2020] NSWCA 213
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Wilson v Chan & Naylor Parramatta Pty Ltd* concerned an appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The appellant, Wilson, had brought proceedings before the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) against the respondent, Chan & Naylor Parramatta Pty Ltd. The core of the dispute revolved around NCAT's jurisdiction to hear the matter and its subsequent power to award costs.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether NCAT's determination of its own jurisdiction constituted an exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth, and whether NCAT possessed the power to order costs consequential upon a dismissal or transfer of proceedings for want of federal jurisdiction. This also raised the question of whether such a costs order would fall outside the legislative competence of New South Wales to confer upon the Tribunal, and if making such an order would result in the Tribunal impermissibly exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that NCAT's anterior jurisdiction to consider its own authority to decide a matter, including whether it possessed federal jurisdiction, was not an exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The Court held that the power to make consequential orders for costs upon the dismissal of proceedings for want of federal jurisdiction was a power that could be conferred by State legislation. Consequently, the Court found that NCAT had the power to make such an order and that doing so did not involve an impermissible exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.