Dowling v Seven Network (Operations) Limited & Anor Dowling v Capilano Honey Ltd & Anor Dowling v Jane Doe 1

DOWLING
v
SEVEN NETWORK (OPERATIONS) LIMITED & ANOR
DOWLING
v
CAPILANO HONEY LTD & ANOR
DOWLING
v
JANE DOE 1 & ORS
[2019] HCASL 311
S145/2019
S162/2019
S197/2019

In each matter, the applicant's application for an order for removal under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) of a cause now pending in the Supreme Court of New South Wales is refused. No proper basis for removal of each cause is identified and, given the current state of each cause, an order for removal is premature. Moreover, there is no basis identified to fragment the ordinary judicial process.
Pursuant to r 26.07.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing each application with costs.

G.A.A Nettle M.M Gordon

10 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia dealt with three applications for orders under section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), which pertain to the removal of causes from the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the High Court. The applicants in the three cases were represented by Dowling, each seeking the removal of separate causes pending in the Supreme Court. The respondents in the respective cases were Seven Network (Operations) Limited and Anor, Capilano Honey Ltd and Anor, and Jane Doe 1 and Others. The primary dispute in each case was whether the causes should be removed from the Supreme Court to the High Court, under the provisions of section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

The legal issues the court had to decide involved whether there was a proper basis for the removal of the causes from the Supreme Court to the High Court, and whether such an order was premature given the current state of each cause. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was a basis to fragment the ordinary judicial process by removing the causes. The court was tasked with evaluating the merits of each application and determining whether the criteria for removal under section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) had been satisfied.

In its decision, the court found that no proper basis for the removal of any of the causes had been identified. The court also found that, given the current state of each cause, an order for removal was premature. Moreover, there was no basis identified to fragment the ordinary judicial process. Consequently, the applications for removal were refused. Pursuant to rule 26.07.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing each application with costs. This decision was made by Justices G.A.A Nettle and M.M Gordon on 10 October 2019.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established