FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Bluechip Corporation Pty Limited v Northbuild Construction Pty Limited [2007] FCA 646 HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – Federal Court – procedure and evidence – transfer to other courts BLUECHIP CORPORATION PTY LIMITED v NORTHBUILD CONSTRUCTION PTY LIMITED, ANDREW CORRIGAN AND DUDLEY K WILDE ACD 4 OF 2007 MADGWICK J 23 APRIL 2007 CANBERRA IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ACD 4 OF 2007 BETWEEN: BLUECHIP CORPORATION PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: NORTHBUILD CONSTRUCTION PTY LIMITED First Respondent ANDREW CORRIGAN Second Respondent DUDLEY K WILDE Third Respondent JUDGE: MADGWICK J DATE OF ORDER: 23 APRIL 2007 WHERE MADE: CANBERRA Upon the first respondent and the second respondent undertaking by their counsel to: (a) consent to a removal of the stay of proceedings currently in place in Supreme Court of Queensland proceeding BS 10255 of 2005 (Brisbane Registry); and (b) support any application to a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland for the separate trial of the question of: (i) whether or not a deed entered into between the applicant and the first respondent on 5 January 2005 limits the obligation of the applicant to pay to the first respondent any particular sum of money; and (ii) what the sum of money is. THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. This application is transferred to the Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane. 2. The costs of the proceedings to date be reserved for determination in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ACD 4 OF 2007 BETWEEN: BLUECHIP CORPORATION PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: NORTHBUILD CONSTRUCTION PTY LIMITED First Respondent ANDREW CORRIGAN Second Respondent DUDLEY K WILDE Third Respondent JUDGE: MADGWICK J DATE: 23 APRIL 2007 PLACE: CANBERRA REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR 1 It has been demonstrated by the applicant that the transfer to the Supreme Court of Queensland should proceed because the proceeding more appropriately is to be heard in that Court than in this Court. 2 I was assisted considerably by thoughtful submissions from both counsel and in particular, the correctness of Dr O'Hare's submission that there is a difference between the question of appropriateness as between two State Supreme Courts, each of which might be said to have a "natural", geographical claim to certain kinds of work, and the same question as between any such Supreme Court and this Court, where there is no such geographical claim. In the latter case the nature and importance of questions of federal law is more likely, in most cases, to be of importance. 3 Among other things, here the questions of federal law appear to me to be of lesser importance than the questions of general law and, in particular, possible questions of the application of relevant State laws such as those regulating and controlling the proceedings at arbitration. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick. Associate: Dated: 9 May 2007 Counsel for the Applicant: Dr R O'Hare Solicitor for the Applicant: United Legal Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: Mr R L Morton Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Crouch & Lyndon Date of Hearing: 23 April 2007 Date of Judgment: 23 April 2007