The District Court held that it may lack jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief under ss 232 and 234 of the ACL (Division 2 of Part 5-2) by reason of s 30(3) of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), which defines 'court' as the Supreme Court for those provisions, and accordingly transferred the entire proceedings to the Supreme Court under s 144(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The Court followed the obiter reasoning of Parker J in NTF Group regarding the District Court's limited jurisdiction over non-monetary ACL remedies, while noting the competing decision in Man Hay Lau concerning s 237 ACL. The question of whether the District Court definitively lacks jurisdiction over ss 232 and 234 ACL claims remains unresolved and is left for the Supreme Court to determine, with the possibility of remittal under s 144(3)(b).
The full text is available to signed-in members.