Lin v State Rail Authority of NSW [2004] FCAFC 219

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lin v State Rail Authority of NSW [2004] FCAFC 219 FEDERAL JURISDICTION – claim under Federal Act struck out – federal jurisdiction in respect of a claim under a State Act.

PROPERTY LAW – nature of a monthly periodic tenancy – Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW).

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 79 Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW) s 3, s 6, s 34, s 44(5), s 63, s 72, s 75, s 76 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 2B, s 51AC Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW) s 4(2)(b) Amad v Grant (1947) 74 CLR 327 cited Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 204 CLR 559 cited Burgundy Royale v Westpac (1987) 18 FCR 212 cited Cattley v Arnold (1859) 1 J&H 651; 70 ER 905 cited Decor Corp v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 cited Dockrill v Cavanagh (1944) 45 SR (NSW) 78 cited Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478 cited Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd (2001) 182 ALR 138 cited Niemann Electronic Industries Ltd [1978] VR 431 cited Oxley v James (1844) 13 M&W 209; 153 ER 87 cited Unilan Holdings Pty Ltd v Kerin (1993) 44 FCR 481 cited

Bradbrook, MacCallum & Moore, Australian Real Property Law (3rd ed, 2002) Butt, Land Law (4th ed, 2001) Gray & Gray, Elements of Land Law (3rd ed, 2001) Hogg & Monahan, Liability of the Crown (3rd ed, 2000) SARAH LIN v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NSW No N 1996 of 2003 FINN, MANSFIELD & GYLES JJ SYDNEY 6 AUGUST 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1996 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SARAH LIN

APPELLANT

AND: STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NSW

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: FINN, MANSFIELD AND GYLES JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 6 AUGUST 2004

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: (1) leave to appeal be granted; (2) the appeal be allowed; (3) the order of the primary judge be set aside; (4) the matter be remitted to the primary judge; (5) the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the application and the appeal. As the matter is being remitted it will be for the judge at first instance to determine whether it is appropriate to have the proceeding transferred to a State Court.