DJ Builders & Son Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of DJ Builders & Son Pty Ltd (in liq) v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 3) [2021] FCA 1041

DJ Builders & Son Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of DJ Builders & Son Pty Ltd (in liq) v Queensland Building and Construction Commission (No 3) [2021] FCA 1041

The common law negligence claim against the QBCC did not arise under a law of the Commonwealth because the relevant rights, duties and liabilities did not owe their existence to, or depend for enforcement on, federal law. DJ Builders' liquidation, the purpose of recovering assets for creditors, and Forward Pack's leave to bring and take responsibility for the proceedings did not change the character of the negligence controversy. The Leave Application and the negligence claim did not share a common substratum of facts and were distinct matters, so the negligence claim was not within the Federal Court's jurisdiction. The proceeding should nevertheless be transferred to the Supreme Court of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Concerning Federal Court Jurisdiction Over a Common Law Negligence Claim in a Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Proceeding / Respondent's Interlocutory Application Filed 30 April 2021 for Setting Aside the Originating Application or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Respondent's interlocutory application allowed; declaration made that the negligence claim was not within the Federal Court's jurisdiction; proceeding transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland; applicants ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the interlocutory application.
Legal Topics
['matter Arising Under a Law of the Commonwealth' 'accrued Jurisdiction' 'liquidation and Company Claims' 'leave to Bring and Take Responsibility for Proceedings on Behalf of a Company in Liquidation' 'cross Vesting Transfer']
['federal Jurisdiction' 'corporations and Corporate Insolvency' 'negligence' 'civil Procedure'] ['matter Arising Under a Law of the Commonwealth' 'accrued Jurisdiction' 'liquidation and Company Claims' 'leave to Bring and Take Responsibility for Proceedings on Behalf of a Company in Liquidation' 'cross Vesting Transfer']

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

Interlocutory Application Concerning Federal Court Jurisdiction Over a Common Law Negligence Claim in a Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Proceeding / Respondent's Interlocutory Application Filed 30 April 2021 for Setting Aside the Originating Application or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether DJ Builders' common law negligence claim against the QBCC was a matter arising under a law of the Commonwealth within s 39B(1A) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)." "Whether DJ Builders' liquidation and the purpose of recovering property for creditors changed the character of the negligence claim so as to attract federal jurisdiction under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)." "Whether Forward Pack's application for leave to bring and take responsibility for DJ Builders' proceedings and the negligence claim formed a single matter for federal jurisdiction purposes." 'Whether the proceeding should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland under s 5(4) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The common law negligence claim against the QBCC did not arise under a law of the Commonwealth because the relevant rights, duties and liabilities did not owe their existence to, or depend for enforcement on, federal law. DJ Builders' liquidation, the purpose of recovering assets for creditors, and Forward Pack's leave to bring and take responsibility for the proceedings did not change the character of the negligence controversy. The Leave Application and the negligence claim did not share a common substratum of facts and were distinct matters, so the negligence claim was not within the Federal Court's jurisdiction. The proceeding should nevertheless be transferred to the Supreme Court of...

Court Disposition

Respondent's interlocutory application allowed; declaration made that the negligence claim was not within the Federal Court's jurisdiction; proceeding transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland; applicants ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the interlocutory application.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's interlocutory application filed 30 April 2021 is allowed." "It is declared that the first applicant's claim for damages for negligence in the applicants' Originating Application filed 4 June 2019, as articulated in their Amended Statement of Claim filed 18 March 2021, is not within the...