Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd and Anor [2004] FCA 169

Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd and Anor [2004] FCA 169

The motion to cross-vest was dismissed because the court found that the proceedings before the Federal Court were at an advanced stage, with a hearing date already set, and urgency for resolution emphasised. The court was not persuaded that sufficient commonality or overlap existed between the Federal Court and Supreme Court proceedings to justify transfer, and found it would be inequitable to join these proceedings to broader, more complex Supreme Court proceedings at this late stage.

Parties
Applicant: Concrete Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Ghassan Fares
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Motion (practice and Procedure) / Ruling on Application to Transfer Proceedings (cross Vesting)
Outcome
Application to transfer (cross-vesting) dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Transfer of Proceedings, Cross Vesting, Interests of Justice, Copyright, Implied Licence, Judicial Economy
Practice and Procedure Transfer of Proceedings Cross Vesting Interests of Justice Copyright Implied Licence Judicial Economy

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Concrete Pty Ltd

Applicant

Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Ghassan Fares

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion (practice and Procedure) / Ruling on Application to Transfer Proceedings (cross Vesting)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be cross-vested from the Federal Court to the Supreme Court of New South Wales under s 5(4) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether it is in the interests of justice to transfer the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to cross-vest was dismissed because the court found that the proceedings before the Federal Court were at an advanced stage, with a hearing date already set, and urgency for resolution emphasised. The court was not persuaded that sufficient commonality or overlap existed between the Federal Court and Supreme Court proceedings to justify transfer, and found it would be inequitable to join these proceedings to broader, more complex Supreme Court proceedings at this late stage.

Court Disposition

Application to transfer (cross-vesting) dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The notice of motion filed 9 February 2004 be dismissed.
  • Costs reserved.