McMahon, W.J. v. Smith, F. & Ors [1986] FCA 564

McMahon, W.J. v. Smith, F. & Ors [1986] FCA 564

The claims against the second respondents are not so clearly untenable as to justify summary intervention; there may be sufficient connection between federal and non-federal claims (through representations made in the solicitor's office) to grant the Court accrued jurisdiction, warranting that the motion to strike out or stay be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: William James McMahon; First Respondent: Frederick Stanley Smith; First Respondent: Delma Joyce Smith; Second Respondent: Patrick Joseph Rummery; Second Respondent: Mary Elizabeth Rummery
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 1986
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Claim And/or Stay Proceedings / Motion Determination Following Amendment to Statement of Claim
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Accrued Jurisdiction, Striking Out Statement of Claim, Professional Negligence, Jurisdictional Challenge
Federal Jurisdiction Contract Law Negligence Accrued Jurisdiction Striking Out Statement of Claim Professional Negligence Jurisdictional Challenge

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William James McMahon

Applicant

Frederick Stanley Smith

First Respondent

Delma Joyce Smith

First Respondent

Patrick Joseph Rummery

Second Respondent

Mary Elizabeth Rummery

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Claim And/or Stay Proceedings / Motion Determination Following Amendment to Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Federal Court has accrued jurisdiction to entertain non-federal claims against second respondents (solicitors)
  2. 2 Whether the Statement of Claim against the second respondents should be struck out or proceedings stayed
  3. 3 Whether the federal and non-federal claims arise from a common substratum of facts

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against the second respondents are not so clearly untenable as to justify summary intervention; there may be sufficient connection between federal and non-federal claims (through representations made in the solicitor's office) to grant the Court accrued jurisdiction, warranting that the motion to strike out or stay be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • The motion be dismissed.
  • The costs of the motion be costs in the principal proceeding as between the applicant and the second respondents.