Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd
[2011] QCA 118
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd[2011] QCA 118
Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd[2011] QCA 118
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | General Civil Appeal – Further Order |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 3 June 2011 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Heard on the papers |
JUDGE: | Fraser and Chesterman JJA and Ann Lyons J |
FURTHER ORDER: | The proceedings in the trial division in SC No 3872 of 2001 are to be transferred to the Magistrates Court at Brisbane. |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – REMOVAL OF ACTIONS TO AND FROM MAGISTRATES COURT – where a judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal resulted in the remaining matters in dispute being within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court – where the pleadings in the matter will require amendment – where the trial judge in the Supreme Court has the advantage of familiarity with the matter – where the remaining questions in issue are not especially complex – whether the proceedings should be transferred to the Magistrates Court for final determination |
COUNSEL: | L D Bowden for the appellant |
SOLICITORS: | Shand Taylor Lawyers for the appellant |
[1] FRASER JA: When judgment was delivered in this matter on 13 May 2011, the Court directed the parties to make further submissions upon the question whether the proceedings in the trial division should be transferred to the Magistrates Court.[1] The parties have made written submissions on that topic. Each accepts that the matters remaining in issue on the claim and counterclaim are within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court.
[2] The appellant argues that the proceedings should remain in the trial division until the trial judge has considered issues of amendments to the pleadings, after which the proceedings should be transferred to the Magistrates Court for final determination. The respondent argues that the proceedings should remain in the trial division so that the trial judge may consider those issues and decide whether or not to transfer the proceedings to the Magistrate Court.
[3] The basis of those arguments is that the trial judge has the advantage of familiarity with the issues and extensive history of the proceedings. That is so, but the remaining questions are not especially complex. The Magistrates Court has jurisdiction and the proceedings should be conducted at less cost in that court than if they remain in the Supreme Court. There is also a public interest in ensuring that the resources of the trial division are not inappropriately devoted to matters which are within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court.
[4] In my opinion, all questions which remain in the proceedings, including the question whether the appellant requires and should be given leave to amend its pleading to pursue its foreshadowed claim, should be resolved in the Magistrates Court.
[5] I would order that the proceedings in the trial division in SC No 3872 of 2001 be transferred to the Magistrates Court at Brisbane.
[6] CHESTERMAN JA: I agree with the further order proposed by Fraser JA for the reasons given by his Honour.
[7] ANN LYONS J: I agree with the reasons of Fraser JA and the order proposed.
Footnotes
[1] Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 98 at [57], [59].