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.
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
Legal Issues
- 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."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment