LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LTD v HOSSCO MARBLE AND GRANITE MANUFACTURING PTY LTD [1994] NSWCA 181

LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LTD v HOSSCO MARBLE AND GRANITE MANUFACTURING PTY LTD [1994] NSWCA 181

No error was established in the primary judge’s exercise of discretion to refuse both the transfer of the proceedings to Queensland and the reference to arbitration. The reasons provided, though brief, were sufficient in the context of the interlocutory and procedural nature of the decision. The refusal was a discretionary decision supported by adequate reasoning, and no basis existed for appellate intervention. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Parties
Claimant: Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd; Opponent: Hossco Marble & Granite Manufacturing Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 1994
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Interlocutory Orders From the Supreme Court of Nsw, Common Law Division
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused (majority); summons dismissed; claimant to pay opponent's costs.
Legal Topics
Cross Vesting Legislation, Transfer of Proceedings, Referral to Arbitration, Adequacy of Reasons, Discretionary Procedural Decisions
Practice and Procedure Arbitration Jurisdiction Cross Vesting Legislation Transfer of Proceedings Referral to Arbitration Adequacy of Reasons Discretionary Procedural Decisions

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd

Claimant

Hossco Marble & Granite Manufacturing Pty Ltd

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Interlocutory Orders From the Supreme Court of Nsw, Common Law Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in refusing to transfer proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland under Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether adequate reasons were given for refusing transfer or reference to arbitration as provided in the contract
  3. 3 Whether such refusal constitutes a 'decision' within s13(a) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 from which no appeal lies

Ratio Decidendi

No error was established in the primary judge’s exercise of discretion to refuse both the transfer of the proceedings to Queensland and the reference to arbitration. The reasons provided, though brief, were sufficient in the context of the interlocutory and procedural nature of the decision. The refusal was a discretionary decision supported by adequate reasoning, and no basis existed for appellate intervention. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused (majority); summons dismissed; claimant to pay opponent's costs.

Orders

  • Summons dismissed.
  • Claimant to pay the opponent's costs.