White Enhancements Pty Limited v Quick Fit Tyre Service Pty Limited as trustee for the Quick Fit Unit Trust

[2008] ACTSC 122

Supreme Court of the ACT

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Cross-vesting
3. › Transfer of proceedings
4. › Whether proceedings within cross-vested jurisdiction only
5. › Whether in the interests of justice to transfer
6. › Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1993 (ACT), s 5(2)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Jurisdiction
3. › Service and Execution of Process
4. › Whether interstate service confers jurisdiction
5. › Whether Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) confers jurisdiction independently of cross-vesting legislation
6. › Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), ss 5, 12, 15
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Meaning of 'a law of that other State or Territory'
3. › Whether reference to 'law' includes common law or is limited to legislative provisions
4. › Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1993 (ACT), s 5(2)(b)(ii)(B)

Quick Take

The Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) confers jurisdiction on the ACT Supreme Court to hear any cause where the defendant is served anywhere in Australia, independently of cross-vesting legislation. This means that for transfer applications under s 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1993 (ACT), the mandatory transfer provision in s 5(2)(b)(ii) will generally not apply where the plaintiff has served the defendant interstate under SEPA, and the discretionary 'interests of justice' test in s 5(2)(b)(iii) will govern instead. The phrase 'a law of that other State or Territory' in s 5(2)(b)(ii)(B) refers only to legislative provisions, not common law principles.