Coshott v Crouch [2018] NSWSC 853

Coshott v Crouch [2018] NSWSC 853

The plaintiff's claim was not part of the Bankruptcy Act matter previously before the Federal Court, because the substantive issue of entitlement to an order for sale had been determined and the later breach of trust claim concerned the trustees' conduct under the trust for sale. However, the proceedings were in federal jurisdiction because the rights and duties enforced were rights under a trust created by the Federal Court's exercise of federal jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act. The matter was not a special federal matter because the Supreme Court had jurisdiction independently of the Cross-Vesting Act through its general equity jurisdiction over trusts. Transfer was not required or...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Transfer of Proceedings to the Federal Court Under the Jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Legislation / Procedural Application in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Jurisdiction
Outcome
The defendants' transfer application failed and the Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['matter Arising Under Laws Made by Parliament' 'special Federal Matter' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'section 66 G Statutory Trust for Sale' 'breach of Trust Claim Against Trustees for Sale']
['federal Jurisdiction' 'cross Vesting' 'bankruptcy' 'equity' 'trusts'] ['matter Arising Under Laws Made by Parliament' 'special Federal Matter' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'section 66 G Statutory Trust for Sale' 'breach of Trust Claim Against Trustees for Sale']

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

Notice of Motion Seeking Transfer of Proceedings to the Federal Court Under the Jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Legislation / Procedural Application in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's Supreme Court breach of trust proceedings against trustees appointed for sale by the Federal Court were in federal jurisdiction." 'Whether the proceedings formed part of the same matter as the Federal Court bankruptcy proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).' 'Whether the proceedings arose under Commonwealth law because the trust was created by orders made in the exercise of federal jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).' 'Whether the proceedings were a special federal matter requiring transfer to the Federal Court.' 'Whether transfer to the Federal Court was more appropriate or otherwise in the interests of justice under s 5 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim was not part of the Bankruptcy Act matter previously before the Federal Court, because the substantive issue of entitlement to an order for sale had been determined and the later breach of trust claim concerned the trustees' conduct under the trust for sale. However, the proceedings were in federal jurisdiction because the rights and duties enforced were rights under a trust created by the Federal Court's exercise of federal jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act. The matter was not a special federal matter because the Supreme Court had jurisdiction independently of the Cross-Vesting Act through its general equity jurisdiction over trusts. Transfer was not required or...

Court Disposition

The defendants' transfer application failed and the Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["Order that the defendants' Notice of Motion dated 19 October 2017 be dismissed." "Order that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion." "Grant liberty to the parties to apply with respect to Order 2, such liberty to be exercised within 21 days of today's date."]