The appeal was dismissed as incompetent. The Full Court held that because the matter for determination arose under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 7(4)(a) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Tas) required the appeal to be instituted in and determined by the Full Court of the Federal Court, not the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Where the determinative issue in an appeal from a single judge of a State Supreme Court is a matter arising under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 7(4)(a) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 requires the appeal to be instituted in and determined by the Full Court of the Federal Court, irrespective of the source of the federal jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court. A matter 'arises under' a Commonwealth Act for the purposes of s 7(4)(a) where the right or duty in question owes its existence to, or depends upon, that Act for its enforcement — here, the standing question depended entirely on the operation of ss 58 and 116 of the Bankruptcy Act. The exemption in s 116(2)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act for rights to recover damages for personal injury does not preserve standing where the personal injury claims flow from and are dependent on claims in property and financial interests.
The full text is available to signed-in members.