Kinham Pty Ltd v TKJ Nominees Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1442

Kinham Pty Ltd v TKJ Nominees Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1442

Because the proceedings had been initiated before Re Wakim and were now clearly outside the Federal Court's jurisdiction, the Court nevertheless had power to stay them for want of jurisdiction; given the Western Australian legislation enabling an application for the proceeding to be treated as a Supreme Court proceeding, a stay with liberty to apply was more appropriate than dismissal or withdrawal, and costs should be reserved rather than awarded to the respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Corporations Law Proceeding for Declarations and Other Relief / Motion on Notice Seeking a Stay With Liberty to Apply for Transfer to the Supreme Court of Western Australia
Outcome
Proceedings stayed; liberty to apply granted; costs of the motion reserved.
Legal Topics
['cross Vesting' 'stay of Proceedings for Want of Jurisdiction' 'transfer to Supreme Court of Western Australia' 'undue Preferences' 'costs of Motion']
['corporations Law' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['cross Vesting' 'stay of Proceedings for Want of Jurisdiction' 'transfer to Supreme Court of Western Australia' 'undue Preferences' 'costs of Motion']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Corporations Law Proceeding for Declarations and Other Relief / Motion on Notice Seeking a Stay With Liberty to Apply for Transfer to the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court could stay proceedings commenced before Re Wakim where it was common ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the principal application.' 'Whether the proceedings should instead be withdrawn, struck out or dismissed.' 'Whether respondents should receive costs of the motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the proceedings had been initiated before Re Wakim and were now clearly outside the Federal Court's jurisdiction, the Court nevertheless had power to stay them for want of jurisdiction; given the Western Australian legislation enabling an application for the proceeding to be treated as a Supreme Court proceeding, a stay with liberty to apply was more appropriate than dismissal or withdrawal, and costs should be reserved rather than awarded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Proceedings stayed; liberty to apply granted; costs of the motion reserved.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings be stayed.' 'The applicants have liberty to apply for orders or directions to enable the proceedings to be transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The respondents have liberty to apply to lift the stay of proceedings if the applicants do not apply for such orders or directions within...