Hamod v State of New South Wales [2003] FCA 493

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hamod v State of New South Wales [2003] FCA 493 CROSS-VESTINGof proceedings to Supreme Court of New South Wales at instance of applicants to proceedings – application opposed by one respondent and supported by other respondent – order appropriate by reason of interests of justice – any existing unsatisfied orders as to costs and security enforceable thereafter in Supreme Court in context of cross-vested proceedings - whole of proceedings crystallised or yet to crystallise within cross-vesting order.

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) ss 5(4) and 11(3) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 85 (as amended by Courts Legislation Amendment (Civil Juries) Act 2001 (NSW)

Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (2001) 113 FCR 42 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 564 James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd v Barry (2000) 50 NSWLR 357 Bourke v State Bank of New South Wales (1988) 22 FCR 378 Burgundy Royale Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 18 FCR 212 Unilan Holdings Pty Ltd v Kerin (1993) 44 FCR 481 Wilson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2002] NSWSC 506 Matula v Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of Queensland 22 October 1993 unreported) Seymour-Smith v Electricity Trust of South Australia (1989) 17 NSWLR 648 Lengyel v Rasad (1989) 99 FLR 130 Qantas Airways Ltd v Dillingham Corporation (NSW Court of Appeal 25 August 1988 unreported) Mullins Investments Pty Ltd v Elliott Exploration Co Pty Ltd (1989) 1 WAR 531 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 ANTHONY HAMOD AND HAMOCK INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND UBS AUSTRALIA LIMITED N 643 OF 2000 CONTI J 22 MAY 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 643 OF 2000