Emmerton R.A. v Lauer A.R. [1995] FCA 680

Emmerton R.A. v Lauer A.R. [1995] FCA 680

The application to discharge the transfer order was refused because the real claim was a common law allegation of misfeasance in public office or an analogous tort against New South Wales officers, the asserted Trade Practices Act 1974 and Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976 bases did not provide any apparent federal element, and the appropriate jurisdiction for such a claim lay in the courts of New South Wales rather than the Federal Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 1995
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Application to Discharge Transfer Order / Application by the Applicant to Discharge an Order Transferring the Proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Application refused; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['transfer of Proceedings' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'state Officers' 'trade Practices Act Jurisdiction' 'judiciary Act S 39 B']
['practice and Procedure' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'tort Law'] ['transfer of Proceedings' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'state Officers' 'trade Practices Act Jurisdiction' 'judiciary Act S 39 B']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Application to Discharge Transfer Order / Application by the Applicant to Discharge an Order Transferring the Proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the order transferring the proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales should be discharged.' 'Whether the proceeding had any real federal element by reason of the Trade Practices Act 1974 or the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976.' 'Whether a claim alleging misfeasance in public office by officers of New South Wales should be heard in a State forum.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to discharge the transfer order was refused because the real claim was a common law allegation of misfeasance in public office or an analogous tort against New South Wales officers, the asserted Trade Practices Act 1974 and Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976 bases did not provide any apparent federal element, and the appropriate jurisdiction for such a claim lay in the courts of New South Wales rather than the Federal Court.

Court Disposition

Application refused; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application to discharge the previous order transferring the proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales was refused.' 'Costs were reserved.']