Westpac Banking Corp v Paterson [1999] FCA 1254

Westpac Banking Corp v Paterson [1999] FCA 1254

Because the matter was transferred under the cross-vesting scheme prior to the amended cross-claim raising federal matters, the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to determine the proceedings against the second respondent, as the scheme was found unconstitutional by the High Court in Re Wakim and the conditions for accrued jurisdiction at date of transfer were not satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Jurisdictional Ruling Before Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Court lacks jurisdiction over the proceeding against the second respondent.
Legal Topics
['federal Jurisdiction' 'cross Vesting' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'loan Agreements' 'mortgage' 'contracts Review Act']
['jurisdiction' 'banking and Finance' 'equity'] ['federal Jurisdiction' 'cross Vesting' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'loan Agreements' 'mortgage' 'contracts Review Act']

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

Civil / Jurisdictional Ruling Before Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to determine proceedings transferred from the NSW Supreme Court under the cross-vesting scheme after High Court decision in Re Wakim; whether post-transfer amendments could confer federal jurisdiction relating to the cross-claim']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the matter was transferred under the cross-vesting scheme prior to the amended cross-claim raising federal matters, the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to determine the proceedings against the second respondent, as the scheme was found unconstitutional by the High Court in Re Wakim and the conditions for accrued jurisdiction at date of transfer were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Court lacks jurisdiction over the proceeding against the second respondent.

Orders

  • ['Declaration that the Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the proceedings against the second respondent.']