Residual Assco Group Limited v Spalvins

Constitutional law (Cth) – State law providing for order that a proceeding commenced in a federal court be treated as a proceeding in the Supreme Court - Whether State law invalid by reason of interference with the procedures of a federal court after order by that court that it had no jurisdiction - State law not invalid.

High Court and federal judiciary – Federal Court and Family Court - Original jurisdiction conferred under cross-vesting legislation of the Commonwealth held to be invalid in a previous decision - Original jurisdiction also conferred under other laws of the Commonwealth - Jurisdiction to make an order staying for want of jurisdiction a matter commenced under invalid cross-vesting legislation - Whether exercising jurisdiction conferred under invalid cross-vesting legislation or under other laws of the Commonwealth in making the order - Whether issue arises as to whether an order made under invalid legislation is a nullity or voidable.

Procedure – Courts - Supreme Courts of the States and federal courts - State law provided for Supreme Court to make an order that a proceeding commenced in a federal court in respect of which that federal court had made an order that it had no jurisdiction be treated as a proceeding in the Supreme Court - Effect of State law.

Constitution – ss 71, 76(ii), 77(i), 109.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – s 31(1)(d).

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – s 19.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – s 39B(1A)(c).

Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA) – s 11.

Rules of the Supreme Court of South Australia – r 123A.05.