Singh v Khan [2021] NSWCA 281

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Singh v Khan [2021] NSWCA 281 Hearing dates: 8 November 2021 Date of orders: 19 November 2021 Decision date: 19 November 2021 Before: Brereton JA Decision: (1) Unless by 3 December 2021 the appellant has filed an application for leave to appeal, including for an extension of time in which to do so, the appeal be dismissed with costs. (2) The proceedings are adjourned to 6 December 2021 before the Registrar for further directions. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Court of Appeal – Objections to competency of appeal – Whether appeal from exercise of cross-vested jurisdiction and so lies only to Federal Court – Whether leave to appeal required CIVIL PROCEDURE – Cross-vesting – Where appellant became bankrupt after commencing proceedings in Supreme Court – Whether a "matter arising under" the Bankruptcy Act – Distinction from exercise of jurisdiction in bankruptcy – Cross-vesting legislation not intended to require appeals from judgment in a matter arising under a Commonwealth Act to be instituted in federal Court where first instance court not exercising cross-vested jurisdiction – Primary judge was not exercising cross-vested jurisdiction – Cross-vesting legislation not engaged CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – The Judiciary – 'Matter' – Proceedings not owing existence to federal law but stayed by operation of federal law nevertheless constitute a 'matter' arising under federal law APPEALS – Leave to appeal – Whether leave required from declaratory orders – Whether declarations can be interlocutory – Declarations were interlocutory for purposes of leave to appeal – Leave to appeal required – Appellant directed to file application for leave to appeal lest the appeal be dismissed Legislation Cited: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss 5, 27(1), 35, 35A, 60 Commonwealth Constitution, ss 75, 76(ii) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 39, 39B Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), ss 3(1)(e), 7, Sch Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4, 13.6 Cases Cited: AB v New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 243 Australian Builders' Labourers' Federated Union of Workers – Western Australian Branch v J-Corp Pty Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 452; [1993] FCA 360 Barnes v Australian Telecommunications Corporation [1996] 2 Qd R 1; QCA 1 Bramco Electronics Pty Ltd v ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd (2013) 86 NSWLR 115; [2013] NSWCA 392 Caboche v Ramsay (1993) 119 ALR 215; [1993] FCA 920 CGU Insurance Ltd v Blakeley (2016) 259 CLR 339; [2016] HCA 2 Clarke v Chadburn [1985] 1 WLR 78; 1 All ER 211 Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Employment Advocate [2001] FCA 1442 Fisher & Paykel Health Care Pty Ltd v Avion Engineering Pty Ltd (1991) 103 ALR 239; [1991] FCA 566 Felton v Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367; [1971] HCA 39 Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570; [1983] HCA 12 Fraser v NRMA Holdings Ltd (1995) 55 FCR 452; [1995] FCA 9 In the Marriage of Smith (No 2) (1985) 10 Fam LR 283 Inland Revenue Commissioners v Rossminster Ltd [1980] AC 952; 1 All ER 80 International General Electric Co of New York Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1962] Ch 784; 2 All ER 398 Jess & Jess [2021] FamCAFC 159 Kermani v Westpac Banking Corporation (2012) 36 VR 130; [2012] VSCA 42 Leybourne v Habkouk [2012] NSWCA 212 Little v Victoria [1998] 4 VR 596 Macatangay v New South Wales (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 272 McGinn v Cranbrook School [2016] NSWCA 226 Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales (2008) 171 FCR 380; [2008] FCAFC 172 Morris Finance Ltd v Brown (2016) 93 NSWLR 551; [2016] NSWCA 343 National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd v Grosvenor Hill (Qld) (2001) 183 ALR 700; [2001] FCA 237 NZI Securities Australia Ltd v Poignand (1994) 51 FCR 584; [1994] FCA 1219 Page v McKensey [2004] NSWCA 437 Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457; [1981] HCA 7 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (No 1) (1980) 147 CLR 35; [1980] HCA 41 R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Barrett (1945) 70 CLR 141; [1945] HCA 50 Re Luck (2003) 78 ALJR 177; [2003] HCA 70 Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 127 Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd [2021] HCASL 142 Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd, in the matter of Singh [2020] FCA 886 Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd, in the matter of Singh [2021] FCAFC 14 Singh v Khan [2019] NSWSC 485 Singh v Khan [2021] NSWSC 1093 Stack v Coast Securities (No 9) Pty Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 261; [1983] HCA 36 Tampion v Anderson (No 2) [1973] VR 829 Truthful Endeavour Pty Ltd v Condon (2015) 233 FCR 174; [2015] FCAFC 70 Warramunda Village Inc v Pryde (2002) 116 FCR 58; [2002] FCA 250 Weatherall v Satellite Receiving Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd (1999) 30 ACSR 698; [1999] FCA 218 Wickstead v Browne (1992) 30 NSWLR 1; [1992] NSWCA 272 Texts Cited: Commonwealth House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 22 October 1986 Explanatory Memorandum, Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Bill 1987 (Cth) Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Gurjit Singh (Appellant) Ghulam Akbar Khan (First Respondent) Samina Khan (Second Respondent) Fobupu Pty Ltd (Third Respondent) Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (Fourth Respondent) Anthony Dicembre (Fifth Respondent) Ryan Brown (Sixth Respondent) Karen Jones (Seventh Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Self-represented (Appellant) R Brown (First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Respondents) C Frommer (sol) (Fourth Respondent)