Hamod v State of New South Wales [2003] FCA 493

Hamod v State of New South Wales [2003] FCA 493

It was in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales because the Applicants sought that course, the State supported it, the remaining causes of action were common law claims of a kind within the ordinary work and expertise of the Supreme Court, and UBS had not shown a specific prejudice or delay sufficient to outweigh transfer. Outstanding costs and security for costs matters did not prevent transfer because incomplete interlocutory processes and accrued or future costs entitlements remain incidents of the cross-vested proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Application to Transfer Proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales Under Cross Vesting Legislation / Interlocutory Application Before Defences Had Been Filed
Outcome
Application granted; proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales in its Common Law Division.
Legal Topics
['transfer of Proceedings' 'interests of Justice' 'federal Court Jurisdiction After Trade Practices Act Claims Struck Out' 'effect of Cross Vesting on Interlocutory Orders and Accrued Costs Entitlements' 'civil Jury Trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales']
['civil Procedure' 'cross Vesting' 'costs' 'security for Costs'] ['transfer of Proceedings' 'interests of Justice' 'federal Court Jurisdiction After Trade Practices Act Claims Struck Out' 'effect of Cross Vesting on Interlocutory Orders and Accrued Costs Entitlements' 'civil Jury Trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales']

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

Application to Transfer Proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales Under Cross Vesting Legislation / Interlocutory Application Before Defences Had Been Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was in the interests of justice under s 5(4)(b)(iii) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) that the proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.' 'Whether outstanding costs and security for costs matters should delay or prevent a cross-vesting order.' 'Whether any possible entitlement to a jury trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales should affect the transfer decision.' "Whether the Federal Court's continuing jurisdiction over remaining non-federal common law claims weighed against transfer."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales because the Applicants sought that course, the State supported it, the remaining causes of action were common law claims of a kind within the ordinary work and expertise of the Supreme Court, and UBS had not shown a specific prejudice or delay sufficient to outweigh transfer. Outstanding costs and security for costs matters did not prevent transfer because incomplete interlocutory processes and accrued or future costs entitlements remain incidents of the cross-vested proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application granted; proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales in its Common Law Division.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales in its Common Law Division, pursuant to the provisions of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth).' "The Second Respondent pay the Applicants' costs of the application in the proceedings commenced by notice of motion filed on...