FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Styles v Clayton Utz [2011] FCA 125 Citation: Styles v Clayton Utz [2011] FCA 125 Parties: BRIDGETTE REBECCA STYLES v CLAYTON UTZ File number(s): NSD 776 of 2010 Judge: PERRAM J Date of judgment: 18 February 2011 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Transfer of Proceedings Legislation: Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1976 (Cth) s5 Date of hearing: 15 February 2011 Date of last submissions: 15 February 2011 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 8 Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: K Nomchong Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 776 of 2010 BETWEEN: BRIDGETTE REBECCA STYLES Applicant AND: CLAYTON UTZ Respondent JUDGE: PERRAM J DATE OF ORDER: 16 FEBRUARY 2011 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Transfer proceeding NSD 776 of 2010 (Bridgette Rebecca Styles v Clayton Utz) to the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. 2. Costs are to be costs in the cause. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 776 of 2010 BETWEEN: BRIDGETTE REBECCA STYLES Applicant AND: CLAYTON UTZ Respondent JUDGE: PERRAM J DATE: 18 FEBRUARY 2011 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant, Ms Styles, applies for an order transferring the proceeding in this Court to the Supreme Court of New South Wales pursuant to s 5(4) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth). The respondent, Clayton Utz, consents to this course. The application was made orally at a directions hearing held at 9.30 am on 15 February 2011. I indicated I would deal with it in chambers. 2 Section 5(4) provides: 5 Transfer of proceedings … (4) Where: (a) a proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the relevant proceeding) is pending in the Federal Court or the Family Court (in this subsection referred to as the first court); and (b) it appears to the first court that: (i) the relevant proceeding arises out of, or is related to, another proceeding pending in the Supreme Court of a State or Territory and it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by that Supreme Court; (ii) having regard to: (A) whether, in the opinion of the first court, the relevant proceeding or a substantial part of it would have been incapable of being instituted in that court, apart from this Act and any law of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction; and (B) whether, in the opinion of the first court, the relevant proceeding or a substantial part of it would have been capable of being instituted in the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, apart from this Act and any law of a State or Territory relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction; and (C) the extent to which, in the opinion of the first court, the matters for determination in the relevant proceeding are matters arising under or involving questions as to the application, interpretation or validity of a law of the State or Territory referred to in sub-subparagraph (B) and not within the jurisdiction of the first court apart from this Act and any law of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction; and (D) the interests of justice; it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by that Supreme Court; or (iii) it is otherwise in the interests of justice that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Supreme Court of a State or Territory; the first court shall transfer the relevant proceeding to that Supreme Court. … 3 Plainly subsection 4(a) is satisfied. Subsection (4)(b)(i), however, requires some knowledge of the various proceedings which are on foot. 4 In this Court, Ms Styles, who is a solicitor, has commenced the present proceeding against her former employer, Clayton Utz, a well-known firm of Sydney solicitors. In substance, it is a sexual harassment suit coupled with a claim for victimisation. Some kind of liaison is alleged to have occurred between Ms Styles and another employee, Mr Izzo; it ended; sexual harassment is alleged against Mr Izzo and others who worked for the firm. Ms Styles was dissatisfied with the firm's procedures; matters grew acrimonious; eventually Ms Styles was dismissed. 5 In the Supreme Court there is presently pending Ms Styles' defamation case against Mr Izzo and Clayton Utz. She claims that Mr Izzo defamed her by saying, in effect, that she was using the sexual harassment allegations as a bargaining chip to permit her to remain in the section of Clayton Utz in which he worked. She also says she was defamed by a file note prepared by Mr Izzo recording what appears to have been a confrontation with Ms Styles. 6 It is quite obvious that these two cases should travel together. Although I regard the matters in s 5(4)(b)(ii)(A)-(C) as equivocal I regard (D) ("the interests of justice") as plainly requiring the transfer of this proceeding in the Federal Court to the Supreme Court. The subject matter of the two proceedings is essentially the same. 7 Clayton Utz sought its costs but since it consented to the cross-vesting I can see no principled basis upon which to award them. 8 I make the following orders: 1. Transfer proceeding NSD 776 of 2010 (Bridgette Rebecca Styles v Clayton Utz) to the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. 2. Costs are to be costs in the cause. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram. Associate: Dated: 18 February 2011