FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Corinthian Industries (Sydney) Pty Ltd v Cambridge Homes Pty Ltd

[2000] FCA 284

JURISDICTION – application for order that the Federal Court has no jurisdiction – whether appropriate to make order sought

Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW), s 11

IN THE MATTER OF CAMBRIDGE HOMES PTY LTD

CORINTHIAN INDUSTRIES (SYDNEY) PTY LTD v CAMBRIDGE HOMES PTY LTD

NG 3239 OF 1997

IN THE MATTER OF VALEWAND PTY LTD

COCKS PETROLEUM PTY LTD v VALEWAND PTY LTD

NG 3174 OF 1997

EMMETT J

3 MARCH 2000

SYDNEY

IN THE MATTER OF CAMBRIDGE HOMES PTY LIMITED

NG 3239 OF 1997

IN THE MATTER OF VALEWAND PTY LIMITED

NG 3174 OF 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     I have before me an application by the liquidator of Valewand Pty Limited for an order that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceedings.  The application is prompted by the provisions of section 11 of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) (‘the Act’).  This legislation was prompted by the decision of the High Court in Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally [1999] HCA 27 in which the High Court concluded that, under the Constitution, State Parliaments may not confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court. 

2                     In section 11(1) of the Act, “relevant order” is defined as including “any decision or determination by a federal court…that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a proceeding relating to a State matter”. The effect of making a relevant order is that the proceedings are deemed to have been commenced in, and orders made in the proceedings are deemed to have been made by, the Supreme Court. 

3                     The relief sought in the original application filed in this proceeding on 1 October 1998 was an order that Valewand Pty Limited be wound up, an order that a liquidator be appointed and such further or other orders as the Court deems fit.  The first two orders were made by the Court on 18 December 1998, prior to the High Court determining that this Court had no jurisdiction to deal with such a matter.  No other orders were sought. 

4                     Thus, the proceedings are complete, in that the applicant has obtained all of the relief sought.  The winding up is no doubt continuing and in theory that winding up should continue under the supervision of the court that appointed the liquidator.  Because of the doubts as to the jurisdiction of this Court, it is clearly desirable that such steps as are available be taken to ensure the validity of any further steps taken by the liquidator. 

5                     The Actpermits a party in the position of the liquidator to apply to the Supreme Court for any further orders that may be required in connection with the administration of the company in winding up. Accordingly, I am not convinced that, at the moment, there is any utility in this Court making the order now sought.  In the circumstances, I decline to make the order sought in the motion.

Associate:

Dated:              15 March 2000