Brogan v NSW Crime Commission [1999] NSWSC 239

Brogan v NSW Crime Commission [1999] NSWSC 239

Although proceedings of this sort would normally be dealt with in the Common Law Division or the Administrative Law Division, the transfer motion was brought very late, after the warrants had been issued and executed in October 1996 and the proceedings had been pending since 28 July 1997. Because the matter was about to be assigned a trial date in the Equity Division and transfer might deprive the plaintiffs of an early trial, the proper course was to retain the matter in the Equity Division and dismiss the motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Seeking Declaratory Relief Relating to the Powers of the New South Wales Crime Commission and Consequential Declarations of Invalidity of Search Warrants; Notice of Motion Under Supreme Court Act 1970 S 54 for Transfer Between Divisions / Notice of Motion for Transfer From Equity Division to the Common Law Division or Administrative Law Division Before Trial
Outcome
The first and fourth defendants' notice of motion for transfer was dismissed, with costs ordered in favour of the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['transfer of Proceedings Between Divisions of the Supreme Court of New South Wales' 'supreme Court Jurisdiction' 'new South Wales Crime Commission Powers' 'validity of Search Warrants' 'costs of Motion']

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

Proceedings Seeking Declaratory Relief Relating to the Powers of the New South Wales Crime Commission and Consequential Declarations of Invalidity of Search Warrants; Notice of Motion Under Supreme Court Act 1970 S 54 for Transfer Between Divisions / Notice of Motion for Transfer From Equity Division to the Common Law Division or Administrative Law Division Before Trial

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be transferred from the Equity Division to the Common Law Division or the Administrative Law Division under Supreme Court Act 1970 s 54.' "Whether the first and fourth defendants, as unsuccessful applicants on the motion, should pay the plaintiffs' costs of the motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although proceedings of this sort would normally be dealt with in the Common Law Division or the Administrative Law Division, the transfer motion was brought very late, after the warrants had been issued and executed in October 1996 and the proceedings had been pending since 28 July 1997. Because the matter was about to be assigned a trial date in the Equity Division and transfer might deprive the plaintiffs of an early trial, the proper course was to retain the matter in the Equity Division and dismiss the motion.

Court Disposition

The first and fourth defendants' notice of motion for transfer was dismissed, with costs ordered in favour of the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ["The first and fourth defendants' notice of motion filed 10 March 1999 is dismissed." "The first and fourth defendants are to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the motion."]