Federal Court of Australia Currie v SPS Energy (Sunshine Coast) Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 478 File number: QUD 79 of 2024 Judgment of: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 2 May 2024 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the respondent allegedly installed a solar panel system, including a battery, on the applicant's property in Queensland – where a fire allegedly resulted from the respondent's installation of the system – where the applicants allege breaches of the Australian Consumer Law – where the alleged damages are particularised as less than $750,000 – where the Federal Court of Australia, the Supreme Court of Queensland and the District Court of Queensland share concurrent jurisdiction for such proceedings – where applicants made oral application for cross-vesting to the Supreme Court of Queensland pursuant to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) as a preliminary to seeking remittal to District Court of Queensland – where such cross-vesting and remittal would entail significant savings in court fees relative to amount of claim – application granted Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) Cases cited: Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511 Division: General Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Economic Regulator, Competition and Access Number of paragraphs: 13 Date of hearing: 2 May 2024 Solicitor for the Applicants: Hall & Wilcox Solicitor for the Respondent: Barry Nilsson Lawyers ORDERS QUD 79 of 2024 BETWEEN: JENNIFER CURRIE First Applicant RAYMOND SMITH Second Applicant AND: SPS ENERGY (SUNSHINE COAST) PTY LTD (ACN 148 127 002) Respondent order made by: LOGAN J DATE OF ORDER: 2 MAY 2024 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The oral application made this day on behalf of the applicants for cross-vesting of the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Queensland pursuant to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) be deemed sufficient, in light of the absence of objection from the respondent, with the need for the filing and service of such an interlocutory application being dispensed with. 2. The proceedings be cross-vested to the Supreme Court of Queensland pursuant to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth). 3. Costs be reserved. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT) LOGAN J: 1 Ms Jennifer Currie and Mr Raymond Smith allege, in a statement of claim filed on 16 February 2024, that they are and were the owners of land, the street address of which is 4 Viola Place, Cooroy, in Queensland, together with the improvements to that property. One such improvement is said to be a residence, another a solar panel system alleged to have been installed by the respondent, SPS Energy (Sunshine Coast) Proprietary Limited, pursuant to an engagement made on or about 20 February 2014. 2 It is further alleged in the statement of claim that part of the solar panel system comprised batteries. Yet further alleged in the statement of claim is that, on or about 15 June 2021, a fire occurred at the property, which occasioned extensive damage to the improvements. That fire is alleged to have been caused by a failure of, or defect in, the batteries, or alternatively, by a poor installation of the batteries. 3 The resultant loss and damage is particularised in the statement of claim. It totals $535,968.92. Ms Currie and Mr Smith allege that the loss and damage, as particularised, was occasioned by various breaches of the Australian Consumer Law, which forms part of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). 4 The respondent has but recently engaged solicitors. At today's case management hearing, the applicants made application orally for the proceeding to be cross-vested to the Supreme Court pursuant to that part of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) which, in the wake of Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511, remains valid. 5 The end to which that application was directed was to see the trial of the proceeding occur in the District Court of Queensland, assuming, of course, that the Supreme Court of Queensland was disposed, upon cross-vesting, to remit the proceeding to the District Court for that purpose. The course was not opposed by the respondent. Indeed, it was embraced. 6 It appears to me that although this Court has jurisdiction to hear the proceeding, that jurisdiction is not exclusive. The jurisdiction is one which is concurrent, both with the Supreme Court, and, within the limits of its monetary jurisdiction, the District Court. 7 The amount of the applicant's claim is such that it falls within the monetary jurisdiction of the District Court. The amount of the claim is also such that, inevitably, given the court fees which attend litigating in this Court, the proceedings will see significant Court costs burden fall on the applicants in the first instance, and if they are successful, on the respondent. That is in marked contrast to the court fees which would attend litigating in the District Court. 8 The property is one situated in Queensland. As alleged in the statement of claim, the respondent carries on business in Queensland. The case is undoubtedly one which could have been instituted in the first instance in the District Court. 9 One option which I canvassed with the parties was to make orders in this Court which would see pleadings closed (a defence is yet to be filed) and an endeavour to resolve the case by mediation, either by a registrar or by a mediator in private practice, as selected by the parties. 10 That course did not have attraction to the parties. There is no particular advantage in making orders to that effect before cross-vesting, as the District Court is perfectly able, in the course of the interlocutory management of the case, to provide both for the closing of pleadings and for any mediation. 11 There is no particular reason, in the face of the joint position of the parties, why the case should remain in this Court. It is perhaps unfortunate that, although filed in February 2024, more than three months have elapsed until this point has been reached, but it has been reached. 12 For these reasons then, I consider that it is in the interests of justice that the proceeding be cross-vested to the Supreme Court of Queensland. 13 It will be a matter for the parties to persuade that Court that the case is one which should thereupon be remitted for further hearing and determination to the District Court. It may well be that such persuasion is no difficult task and could be engendered by a consensual application, but that is to anticipate. I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Logan. Associate: Dated: 8 May 2024