Zurich Insurance PLC v Koper [2022] NSWCA 128

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Zurich Insurance PLC v Koper [2022] NSWCA 128 Hearing dates: 06 July 2022 Date of orders: 20 July 2022 Decision date: 20 July 2022 Before: Bell CJ at [1]; Ward P at [66]; Beech-Jones JA at [67] Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal. 2. Appeal dismissed with costs. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – exercise of non-federal jurisdiction by State Court – territorial limits – where applicant for leave under s 5 of the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) must be capable of properly bringing proceedings against insured in New South Wales – where insured is New Zealand company in liquidation with no presence in New South Wales – where claimant is domiciled in New Zealand – where insured did not submit to jurisdiction of Supreme Court of New South Wales – where relevant loss and damage occurred entirely in New Zealand – where service on insured not authorised by schedule 6 to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – whether service pursuant to ss 9 and 10 of Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) generated personal jurisdiction over insured in New South Wales – whether those provisions are invalid under the Constitution as vesting Supreme Court of New South Wales with non-federal jurisdiction CIVIL PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – multiple meanings – personal jurisdiction – distinct from subject matter jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction – importance of distinction CIVIL PROCEDURE – service outside Australia – service under Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – where underlying claim in New South Wales against New Zealand domiciled defendant is not in federal jurisdiction – where chapter III of the Constitution carries negative implication that Commonwealth Parliament cannot vest Supreme Court of New South Wales with non-federal jurisdiction – where underlying claim could not proceed but for service on defendant pursuant to ss 9 and 10 of Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – whether ss 9 and 10 of Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) are invalid under the Constitution – whether those provisions vest the Supreme Court of New South Wales with non-federal jurisdiction CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Commonwealth Constitution – legislative power – external affairs – principles of construction – heads of legislative power to be given broad plenary construction without limitation or implication not found in express words – heads of legislative power not to be read down by reference to other heads of power – whether external affairs power in s 51(xxix) capable of supporting law as to service and execution of process of Australian courts in New Zealand – where external affairs power is subject to chapter III of the Constitution – where s 51(xxiv) makes provision for service and execution of process throughout Commonwealth CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – the judiciary – chapter III – federal jurisdiction – Court of a State – negative implication that Commonwealth Parliament cannot confer State Court with non-federal jurisdiction – where claim brought in New South Wales against New Zealand domiciled defendant in non-federal jurisdiction – where claim could not proceed but for service on defendant pursuant to ss 9 and 10 of Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – whether those provisions confer Supreme Court of New South Wales with federal jurisdiction and are therefore invalid under the Constitution – whether argument for invalidity inconsistent with decision of High Court in Flaherty v Girgis (1987) 162 CLR 574 INSURANCE – third party claim – application for leave to bring proceedings against insurer pursuant to s 5 of Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) – where insured is New Zealand company in liquidation with no presence in New South Wales – where claimant obtained judgment against insured in New Zealand proceedings concerning subject matter with no connection to New South Wales – where territorial hinge of Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) is that claimant must be capable of properly bringing proceedings against insured in New South Wales – where service on the insured not authorised by schedule 6 to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – whether service pursuant to ss 9 and 10 of Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) resulted in Supreme Court of New South Wales having personal jurisdiction over insured – whether those provisions are invalid under the Constitution PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – jurisdiction – personal jurisdiction – service outside of the jurisdiction – Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – where underlying claim against New Zealand domiciled defendant is not in federal jurisdiction – where chapter III of the Constitution carries negative implication that Commonwealth Parliament cannot vest Supreme Court of New South Wales with non-federal jurisdiction – where underlying claim could not proceed but for service on defendant pursuant to ss 9 and 10 of Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – whether ss 9 and 10 of Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) are invalid under the Constitution Legislation Cited: Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) s 9(1) Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) ss 3–5 Commonwealth Constitution ss 51(xxiv), 51(xxix), 109, ch III Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 25, 39, 39A, 78A Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) s 6, pt 4 Service and Execution of Process Act 1901 (Cth) ss 4, 12 Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) ss 12, 15 Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) ss 9, 10 Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 11.2–11.5, pt 11 div 1A, sch 6 Cases Cited: Ah Yick v Lehmert (1905) 2 CLR 593; [1905] HCA 22 APLA Ltd v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 322; [2005] HCA 44 Aston v Irvine (1955) 92 CLR 353; [1955] HCA 53 Attorney-General (Vic) v Andrews (2007) 230 CLR 369; [2007] HCA 9 Austin v Commonwealth (2003) 215 CLR 185; [2003] HCA 3 BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400; [2004] HCA 61 Body Corporate 346799 v KNZ International Co Ltd [2017] NZHC 511 Bourke v State Bank of New South Wales (1990) 170 CLR 276; [1990] HCA 29 Bros Bins Systems Pty Ltd v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2008) 74 NSWLR 257; [2008] NSWCA 292 Burns v Corbett (2018) 265 CLR 304; [2018] HCA 15 CGU Insurance Ltd v Blakeley (2016) 259 CLR 339; [2016] HCA 2 Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1; [1992] HCA 64 Chubb Insurance Company of Australia Ltd v Moore (2013) 302 ALR 101; [2013] NSWCA 212 Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn (2022) 400 ALR 1; [2022] HCA 16 Clarke v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 240 CLR 272; [2009] HCA 33 Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 33 CSL Australia Pty Ltd v Formosa (2009) 261 ALR 441; [2009] NSWCA 363 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Huang (2021) 96 ALJR 43; [2021] HCA 43 DRJ v Commissioner of Victims Rights (No 2) (2020) 103 NSWLR 692; [2020] NSWCA 242 DSHE Holdings Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd) (in liq) v Abboud; National Australia Bank Ltd v Abboud [2017] NSWSC 579 Flaherty v Girgis (1987) 162 CLR 574; [1987] HCA 17 Gaynor v Attorney General for New South Wales (2020) 102 NSWLR 123; [2020] NSWCA 48 Gosper v Sawyer (1985) 160 CLR 548; [1985] HCA 19 HRH Maharanee Seethadevi Gaekwar of Baroda v Wildenstein [1972] 2 QB 283 John Russell & Co Ltd v Cayzer, Irvine & Co Ltd [1916] 2 AC 298 Laurie v Carroll (1958) 98 CLR 310; [1958] HCA 4 Lipohar v The Queen (1999) 200 CLR 485; [1999] HCA 65 Lorenzo v Carey (1921) 29 CLR 243; [1921] HCA 58 McMillan v Mannix (1993) 31 NSWLR 538 Murphy, McCarthy & Associates Pty Limited v Zurich Australian Insurance Limited [2018] NSWSC 627 New South Wales Medical Defence Union Ltd v Crawford (1993) 31 NSWLR 469 New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006) 229 CLR 1; [2006] HCA 52 New South Wales v The Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337; [1975] HCA 58 O'Brien v Komesaroff (1982) 150 CLR 310; [1982] HCA 33 Peacock v Newtown Marrickville and General Co-operative Building Society (No 4) Ltd (1943) 67 CLR 25; [1943] HCA 13 Plaintiff S164/2018 v Minister for Home Affairs (2018) 92 ALJR 1039; [2018] HCA 51 Polyukhovich v Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501; [1991] HCA 32 PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2012) 247 CLR 240; [2012] HCA 33 R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 CLR 608; [1936] HCA 52 R v Public Vehicles Licensing Appeal Tribunal (Tas); Ex parte Australian National Airways Pty Ltd (1964) 113 CLR 207; [1964] HCA 15 Re Australian Education Union; Ex parte Victoria (1995) 184 CLR 188; [1995] HCA 71 Ridley v Whipp (1916) 22 CLR 381; [1916] HCA 76 Rizeq v Western Australia (2017) 262 CLR 1; [2017] HCA 23 Ruhani v Director of Police (2005) 222 CLR 489; [2005] HCA 42 Spence v Queensland (2019) 268 CLR 355; [2019] HCA 15 Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd (1971) 124 CLR 468; [1971] HCA 40 Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418; [1950] HCA 35 Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd v Page (2021) 106 NSWLR 1; [2021] NSWCA 204 The Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1; [1983] HCA 21 The Grain Pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 202 CLR 479; [2000] HCA 14 The Lord Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Melbourne v The Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31; [1947] HCA 26 Truong v The Queen (2004) 223 CLR 122; [2004] HCA 10 United States v L A Tucker Truck Lines Inc 344 US 33 (1952) University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 481; [1985] HCA 28 Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491; [1988] HCA 12 Wayland v Bird [2017] NSWCA 26 XYZ v Commonwealth (2006) 227 CLR 532; [2006] HCA 25 Texts Cited: M Leeming, Authority to Decide: The Law of Jurisdiction in Australia (2nd ed, The Federation Press, 2020) J Stellios, Zines's The High Court and the Constitution (6th ed, The Federation Press, 2015) "Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement: A Report by the Trans-Tasman Working Group" (Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement, December 2006) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Zurich Insurance PLC (First Applicant) Aspen Insurance UK Ltd (Second Applicant) Dariusz Koper (First Respondent) Attorney-General (Cth) (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: