Sapphire Suite Pty Ltd v Bellini Lounge Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 160

Sapphire Suite Pty Ltd v Bellini Lounge Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 160

Because the plaintiff's claim for damages under a commercial lease arose out of a commercial transaction, Pt 14 r 2 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 assigned it to the Commercial Division rather than the Common Law Division, so the District Court's jurisdiction under s 44(1)(a) of the District Court Act 1973 was doubtful. The jurisdictional issue had substance, s 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 appeared to provide a basis for transfer to the Supreme Court, and any lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter did not prevent the District Court from adjourning it pending the Supreme Court transfer application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Seeking Damages for Breach of a Commercial Lease / Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Adjournment Pending Determination of a Supreme Court Transfer Application Prompted by a Jurisdictional Issue
Outcome
Proceedings adjourned pending the plaintiff's Supreme Court transfer application.
Legal Topics
['district Court Jurisdiction' 'assignment of Supreme Court Business to Divisions' 'commercial Division' 'transfer of Proceedings to Supreme Court' 'adjournment']
['civil Procedure' 'jurisdiction' 'commercial Law'] ['district Court Jurisdiction' 'assignment of Supreme Court Business to Divisions' 'commercial Division' 'transfer of Proceedings to Supreme Court' 'adjournment']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings Seeking Damages for Breach of a Commercial Lease / Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Adjournment Pending Determination of a Supreme Court Transfer Application Prompted by a Jurisdictional Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court had jurisdiction under s 44(1)(a) of the District Court Act 1973 to hear a claim for damages under a commercial lease arising out of a commercial transaction.' "Whether Pt 14 r 2 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 assigned the matter to the Commercial Division rather than the Common Law Division, placing it outside the District Court's s 44(1)(a) jurisdiction." "Whether the proceedings should be adjourned pending the plaintiff's Supreme Court application to transfer the proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff's claim for damages under a commercial lease arose out of a commercial transaction, Pt 14 r 2 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 assigned it to the Commercial Division rather than the Common Law Division, so the District Court's jurisdiction under s 44(1)(a) of the District Court Act 1973 was doubtful. The jurisdictional issue had substance, s 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 appeared to provide a basis for transfer to the Supreme Court, and any lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter did not prevent the District Court from adjourning it pending the Supreme Court transfer application.

Court Disposition

Proceedings adjourned pending the plaintiff's Supreme Court transfer application.

Orders

  • ['Note that the plaintiff has made an application in the Supreme Court to transfer these proceedings to the Supreme Court because of a jurisdictional issue, returnable 5 June 2018.' 'Order that the proceedings be adjourned for further directions before the Judicial Registrar at 10am on Thursday, 28 June 2018.']