Page v. Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd trading as Sydney Seaplanes
Case No.
S60/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
07/09/2021 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bell P, Leeming JA, Emmett AJA)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Jurisdiction – Inconsistency – Where s 11(2) of Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) ("NSW Jurisdiction Act") enabled party to proceeding in which relevant order was made to apply to NSW Supreme Court for order that proceeding be treated as one in Supreme Court – Where relevant order was one relevantly made in federal court that, whether made before or after commencement of s 11, dismissed, struck out or stayed proceeding relating to State matter for want of jurisdiction – Where, were Supreme Court to make order under s 11(2) then, for purposes of any limitation law, proceeding was deemed to have been brought in Supreme Court on day on which proceeding was first recorded as proceeding in federal court – Where appellant commenced proceedings in Federal Court of Australia seeking damages from respondent in connection with seaplane accident pursuant to provisions of Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) ("Commonwealth Act"), incorporated by s 5 of Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1967 (NSW) – Where Federal Court judge dismissed application for want of jurisdiction – Where s 34 of Commonwealth Act provided that right to damages was extinguished if action not brought within two years after date of accident – Where, following dismissal of Federal Court proceedings, two years after date of accident, appellant sought orders in NSW Supreme Court, pursuant to s 11 of NSW Jurisdiction Act, that Federal Court proceedings be treated as proceeding in NSW Supreme Court – Where primary judge held Federal Court judgment was a relevant order for purposes of s 11 of NSW Jurisdiction Act – Where Court of Appeal held "relevant order" in s 11 of NSW Jurisdiction Act refers to decision "dismissing, striking out or staying proceeding relating to State matter for want of jurisdiction", it does not refer to general want of jurisdiction, rather it refers to want of jurisdiction by reason of constitutionally invalid conferral of jurisdiction as considered in Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511 – Whether order of Federal Court dismissing Federal Court proceeding for want of jurisdiction was "relevant order" within meaning of s 11 of NSW Jurisdiction Act – Whether s 34 of Commonwealth Act a "limitation law" within meaning of s 11 of NSW Jurisdiction Act.
Documents
13/04/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by remote connection)
27/04/2022 Notice of appeal
26/05/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
26/05/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
23/06/2022 Written submissions (Respondent)
05/07/2022 Reply
14/09/2022 Hearing (includes orders by consent) (Full Court, Canberra)
05/09/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
13/09/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)