Residual Assco Group Limited v Spalvins [2000] HCA 33

Residual Assco Group Limited v Spalvins [2000] HCA 33

Section 11 of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA) and Rule 123A.05 do not infringe Ch III of the Constitution or s 109. They do not interfere with the procedures of a federal court nor are inconsistent with federal law, because s 11 operates by reference to a concluded proceeding in a federal court, does not transfer or revive it but creates a new proceeding in the Supreme Court for limitation and procedural purposes only. The validity of other provisions was unnecessary to answer as s 11 is severable.

Parties
Plaintiff: Residual Assco Group Limited; First Defendant: Janis Gunars Spalvins; Second Defendant: Second Defendant; Third Defendant: Third Defendant; Fourth Defendant: Fourth Defendant; Fifth Defendant: Fifth Defendant; Sixth Defendant: Sixth Defendant; Seventh Defendant: Seventh Defendant; Intervener: Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (Intervener); Intervener: Attorney-General of the State of Queensland (Intervener); Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Victoria (Intervener); Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (Intervener); Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (Intervener); Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales (Intervener)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Case Stated (constitutional Law Challenge) / High Court, Questions Reserved and Answered
Outcome
Section 11 of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA) and Rule 123A.05 are not invalid; costs ordered for plaintiff; question of validity of ss 6, 7, 8 and 10 unnecessary to answer; consequential costs reserved to single Justice.
Legal Topics
Federal/state Jurisdiction, Cross Vesting, Superior Court Orders—nullity/voidability, Limitation Periods—transitional Provision, Ch III Constitution
Constitutional Law Federal/state Jurisdiction Cross Vesting Superior Court Orders—nullity/voidability Limitation Periods—transitional Provision Ch III Constitution

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Residual Assco Group Limited

Plaintiff

Janis Gunars Spalvins

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Sixth Defendant

Sixth Defendant

Seventh Defendant

Seventh Defendant

Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (Intervener)

Intervener

Attorney-General of the State of Queensland (Intervener)

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Victoria (Intervener)

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (Intervener)

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (Intervener)

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales (Intervener)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Case Stated (constitutional Law Challenge) / High Court, Questions Reserved and Answered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 11 of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA) and rule 123A.05 are invalid as impermissible interference with federal court procedures or inconsistent with federal legislation under s 109 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether ss 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the same Act are invalid
  3. 3 Whether, if any of the impugned provisions are invalid, this affects the validity of any other provision

Ratio Decidendi

Section 11 of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA) and Rule 123A.05 do not infringe Ch III of the Constitution or s 109. They do not interfere with the procedures of a federal court nor are inconsistent with federal law, because s 11 operates by reference to a concluded proceeding in a federal court, does not transfer or revive it but creates a new proceeding in the Supreme Court for limitation and procedural purposes only. The validity of other provisions was unnecessary to answer as s 11 is severable.

Court Disposition

Section 11 of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA) and Rule 123A.05 are not invalid; costs ordered for plaintiff; question of validity of ss 6, 7, 8 and 10 unnecessary to answer; consequential costs reserved to single Justice.

Orders

  • 1. The questions in the case stated are answered: (1) Are s 11 of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA) and r 123A.05 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of South Australia invalid? No. (2) Are any one or more (and, if so, which) of ss 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999...
  • 2. The first, second and third defendants must pay the plaintiff's costs of the case stated.