Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Zurich Insurance PLC v Koper [2022] NSWCA 128 Hearing dates: 06 July 2022 Date of orders: 20 July 2022 Decision date: 20 July 2022 Before: Bell CJ at [1];
Ward P at [66];
Beech-Jones JA at [67]Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Appeal dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – exercise of non-federal jurisdiction by State Court – territorial limits – where applicant for leave under s 5 of the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) must be capable of properly bringing proceedings against insured in New South Wales – where insured is New Zealand company in liquidation with no presence in New South Wales – where claimant is domiciled in New Zealand – where insured did not submit to jurisdiction of Supreme Court of New South Wales – where relevant loss and damage occurred entirely in New Zealand – where service on insured not authorised by schedule 6 to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – whether service pursuant to ss 9 and 10 of Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) generated personal jurisdiction over insured in New South Wales – whether those provisions are invalid under the Constitution as vesting Supreme Court of New South Wales with non-federal jurisdiction
CIVIL PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – multiple meanings – personal jurisdiction – distinct from subject matter jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction – importance of distinction
CIVIL PROCEDURE – service outside Australia – service under Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – where underlying claim in New South Wales against New Zealand domiciled defendant is not in federal jurisdiction – where chapter III of the Constitution carries negative implication that Commonwealth Parliament cannot vest Supreme Court of New South Wales with non-federal jurisdiction – where underlying claim could not proceed but for service on defendant pursuant to ss 9 and 10 of Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – whether ss 9 and 10 of Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) are invalid under the Constitution – whether those provisions vest the Supreme Court of New South Wales with non-federal jurisdiction
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Commonwealth Constitution – legislative power – external affairs – principles of construction – heads of legislative power to be given broad plenary construction without limitation or implication not found in express words – heads of legislative power not to be read down by reference to other heads of power – whether external affairs power in s 51(xxix) capable of supporting law as to service and execution of process of Australian courts in New Zealand – where external affairs power is subject to chapter III of the Constitution – where s 51(xxiv) makes provision for service and execution of process throughout Commonwealth
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – the judiciary – chapter III – federal jurisdiction – Court of a State – negative implication that Commonwealth Parliament cannot confer State Court with non-federal jurisdiction – where claim brought in New South Wales against New Zealand domiciled…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Zurich Insurance PLC v Koper 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWCA 128
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether service on the New Zealand insured, effected pursuant to sections 9 and 10 of the *Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010* (Cth), generated personal jurisdiction over the insured in New South Wales, and if so, whether those Commonwealth provisions were constitutionally valid. Specifically, the Court had to determine if these provisions, by purporting to allow service on a foreign defendant in a non-federal jurisdiction matter, impermissibly vested the Supreme Court of New South Wales with non-federal jurisdiction, contrary to the negative implication arising from Chapter III of the Australian Constitution. This also involved considering whether the external affairs power under section 51(xxix) of the Constitution could support such legislation, and whether the argument for invalidity was inconsistent with existing High Court authority.
The Court reasoned that the *Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010* (Cth) provisions concerning service and the exercise of jurisdiction were valid. It held that the Act did not vest the Supreme Court of New South Wales with non-federal jurisdiction in a manner prohibited by Chapter III of the Constitution. The Court found that the service provisions were a valid exercise of the Commonwealth's legislative power, including its power to make laws with respect to the service and execution of process throughout the Commonwealth and its external affairs power, provided such laws did not contravene Chapter III. The Court distinguished the present case from situations where federal jurisdiction is improperly conferred, concluding that the service provisions did not create a situation where the underlying claim could not proceed but for the unconstitutional vesting of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court found that personal jurisdiction over the insured had been validly established in New South Wales.
The Court granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal. The orders made were that leave to appeal be granted and that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. 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.