French v Provident Capital Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in Liquidation)

FRENCH
v
PROVIDENT CAPITAL LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) & ANOR
[2020] HCASL 46
S303/2019

The applicant seeks an order under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to remove to this Court the whole of the cause now pending in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales constituted of the applicant's appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Parker J) given on 15 August 2019.
The applicant contends that the appeal involves the application of s 51(xviii) of the Constitution and is wholly within federal jurisdiction. But the contention is misplaced. In truth, the applicant identifies no genuine constitutional question or other sufficient justification for the fragmentation of the ordinary appellate process.
Pursuant to r 26.07.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct that the application be determined without listing it for hearing. We order that the application be dismissed, and that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application.

G.A.A Nettle M.M Gordon

11 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in French v Provident Capital Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in Liquidation) sought to have their appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales transferred to the High Court. The applicant argued that the appeal involved the application of section 51(xviii) of the Constitution and therefore fell within federal jurisdiction. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with Parker J delivering the judgment on August 15, 2019. The applicant sought an order under section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to remove the whole of the cause pending in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's contention that the appeal involved a genuine constitutional question or other sufficient justification for the fragmentation of the ordinary appellate process. The court found that the applicant had not identified any genuine constitutional question or other sufficient justification for the transfer of the appeal to the High Court. The court held that the applicant's contention was misplaced and that the appeal was not wholly within federal jurisdiction.

The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the applicant had not identified any genuine constitutional question or other sufficient justification for the transfer of the appeal to the High Court. The court found that the appeal did not involve any matter of federal jurisdiction and therefore there was no sufficient justification for the fragmentation of the ordinary appellate process. The court also noted that the applicant had not identified any other sufficient justification for the transfer of the appeal to the High Court.

The court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application. The court directed that the application be determined without listing it for hearing, pursuant to rule 26.07.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The court held that the applicant's contention was misplaced and that there was no sufficient justification for the transfer of the appeal to the High Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established