Continental Venture Capital Ltd & v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors

[2001] NSWCA 476

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Jurisdiction
2. › Cross-vesting scheme
3. › Federal Court orders made without jurisdiction
4. › Effect of Re Wakim on winding-up orders
5. › Whether proceedings in Supreme Court fatally flawed
6. › Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 4, 6, 7, 8
1. Corporations
2. › Winding up
3. › Court-ordered winding up
4. › Supervisory jurisdiction
5. › Whether winding-up order confines supervision to court that made order
6. › Whether liquidator is officer exclusively of court making winding-up order
7. › Corporations Law, ss 58AA, 471(2), 473(1), 482(1)
1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Inconsistency
3. › Section 109 of the Constitution
4. › State Jurisdiction Acts
5. › Whether State legislation creating rights by reference to ineffective Federal Court judgments inconsistent with Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Contempt
3. › Prohibition
4. › Scope of High Court writ of prohibition
5. › Whether proceedings in Supreme Court contravene prohibition against taking further steps in Federal Court

Quick Take

The Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) creates its own rights, liabilities, obligations and status by reference to ineffective Federal Court judgments, regardless of whether those judgments have been set aside. Proceedings commenced by a liquidator appointed under an ineffective Federal Court winding-up order may continue in the Supreme Court on the basis of rights conferred by the State Jurisdiction Act. The High Court's prohibition in Re Brown; Ex parte Amann was limited to preventing further steps in the Federal Court and does not prevent proceedings in State courts.