Kadam v MiiResorts Group 1 Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 1138

Kadam v MiiResorts Group 1 Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 1138

The originating application sought relief under s 461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to wind up MiiResorts on the just and equitable ground, and the circumstances relied on for that relief arose from the same factual substratum as the other claims in both proceedings. The matter therefore arose under a law of the Parliament and the Court had federal jurisdiction, including accrued jurisdiction, to determine the entire justiciable controversy.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding Pursuant to Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth), Heard Together With Proceeding QUD 147/2017 / Separate Question for Separate Trial on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Question 1 of the Questions for separate trial was answered yes; the Court held that it has jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
['jurisdiction' 'separate Questions' 'representative Proceedings' 'winding Up on Just and Equitable Ground']
['practice and Procedure' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'corporations and Corporate Insolvency'] ['jurisdiction' 'separate Questions' 'representative Proceedings' 'winding Up on Just and Equitable Ground']

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

Representative Proceeding Pursuant to Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth), Heard Together With Proceeding QUD 147/2017 / Separate Question for Separate Trial on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Does the Court have jurisdiction to determine the claim made in these proceedings?']

Ratio Decidendi

The originating application sought relief under s 461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to wind up MiiResorts on the just and equitable ground, and the circumstances relied on for that relief arose from the same factual substratum as the other claims in both proceedings. The matter therefore arose under a law of the Parliament and the Court had federal jurisdiction, including accrued jurisdiction, to determine the entire justiciable controversy.

Court Disposition

Question 1 of the Questions for separate trial was answered yes; the Court held that it has jurisdiction.

Orders

  • ['Question 1 of the "Questions for separate trial" identified at annexure A to the Orders of Murphy J dated 16 June 2017 is answered: "yes".']