Burns v Corbett (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 612

Burns v Corbett (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 612

Given the fundamental jurisdictional questions potentially dispositive of the contempt proceedings, and their significance and overlap with pending matters in the Court of Appeal, there is merit in ordering separate determination of those questions and transferring them to the Court of Appeal prior to further hearing of the substantive contempt charges.

Parties
Plaintiff: Gary Burns; Defendant: Tess Corbett
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Order for Separate Determination of Legal Questions and Removal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Order for separate determination of nominated questions; questions removed to the Court of Appeal; directions and mentions scheduled; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Enforcement of Tribunal Orders, Separation of Questions, Referral to Court of Appeal
Administrative Law Procedure Contempt of Court Jurisdiction of Tribunals Enforcement of Tribunal Orders Separation of Questions Referral to Court of Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Burns

Plaintiff

Tess Corbett

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings / Order for Separate Determination of Legal Questions and Removal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Administrative Decisions Tribunal have jurisdiction to resolve the complaint under s 49ZT Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)?
  2. 2 Did the Appeals Panel of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal have jurisdiction to resolve the complaint?
  3. 3 Is the judgment obtained by the filing of the certificate in the registry of the Supreme Court in accordance with s 114 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) valid and enforceable against the defendant even if the orders of the relevant Tribunal the subject of the certificate are void or voidable?

Ratio Decidendi

Given the fundamental jurisdictional questions potentially dispositive of the contempt proceedings, and their significance and overlap with pending matters in the Court of Appeal, there is merit in ordering separate determination of those questions and transferring them to the Court of Appeal prior to further hearing of the substantive contempt charges.

Court Disposition

Order for separate determination of nominated questions; questions removed to the Court of Appeal; directions and mentions scheduled; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Order that specific questions relating to tribunal jurisdiction and enforceability of judgment be determined separately before any further hearing of the contempt charges (UCPR r 28.2).
  • Removal to the Court of Appeal for determination of the separate questions (UCPR r 1.21).