Solar Shop Australia Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (in liq) v Steele, in the matter of Solar Shop Australia Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2017] FCA 1219

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Solar Shop Australia Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (in liq) v Steele, in the matter of Solar Shop Australia Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2017] FCA 1219 File number: SAD 215 of 2016

Judge: BESANKO J

Date of judgment: 17 October 2017

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of an application by a cross-respondent seeking an order for summary judgment on a cross-claim made under r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where, in the alternative, the cross-respondent seeks orders that certain allegations in the cross-claim be struck out under r 16.21 of the Rules – where the cross-claim cannot stand if the relevant claims are struck out – whether there is a "reasonable" prospect of prosecuting the proceeding – where the application requires consideration of a real issue of law – where the primary question of law is complex and other points of law are raised on the application. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – where the cross-respondent has given Notice of a Constitutional Matter under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – whether there is inconsistency between ss 4 and 6 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 (SA) and the particular regime created by Chapter 2J and Chapter 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where analysis under s 79 of the Judiciary Act of whether Commonwealth law otherwise provides reaches the same conclusion as analysis of inconsistency under s 109 of the Constitution. EQUITY – whether the operation of the CNAL Act excluded the doctrine of equitable contribution – whether there is no common obligation or co-ordinate liabilities between the cross-respondent and Mr Steele – where on a summary judgment application the issue can only be approached at a fairly high level of generality.