{"id":"sa:jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987","name":"Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987","slug":"sa-jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"sa","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":438048,"registerId":"sa:jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987-seed-1775954628896-0lfsgt","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-12","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987","content":"South Australia\nJurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987\nAn Act relating to the cross-vesting of certain jurisdiction.\n\nContents\nPreamble\n1\tShort title\n3\tInterpretation\n3A\tCorporations Act of the Commonwealth\n4\tVesting of additional jurisdiction in certain courts\n5\tTransfer of proceedings\n6\tSpecial federal matters\n6A\tSpecial federal matters: Commonwealth authorities or officers acting under the laws of States\n7\tInstitution and hearing of appeals\n8\tOrders by Supreme Court\n9\tExercise of jurisdiction pursuant to cross-vesting laws\n10\tTransfer of matters arising under Division 1 or 1A of Part V of Trade Practices Act (Commonwealth)\n11\tConduct of proceedings\n12\tOrders as to costs\n13\tLimitation on appeals\n14\tEnforcement and effect of judgments\n15\tSuspension or cessation of operation of Act\nLegislative history\n\n\nPreamble\n1\tInconvenience and expense have occasionally been caused to litigants by jurisdictional limitations in federal, State and Territory courts.\n2\tIt is desirable—\n\t(a)\tto establish a system of cross-vesting of jurisdiction between those courts, without detracting from the existing jurisdiction of any court; and\n\t(b)\tto structure the system in such a way as to ensure as far as practicable that proceedings concerning matters which, apart from this Act and any law of the Commonwealth or another State relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction, would be entirely or substantially within the jurisdiction (other than any accrued jurisdiction) of the Federal Court or the Family Court or the jurisdiction of a Supreme Court of a State or Territory are instituted and determined in that court, whilst providing for the determination by one court of federal and State matters in appropriate cases; and\n\t(c)\tif a proceeding is instituted in a court that is not the appropriate court, to provide a system under which the proceeding will be transferred to the appropriate court.\n\nThe Parliament of South Australia enacts as follows:\n1—Short title\nThis Act may be cited as the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987.\n3—Interpretation\n\t(1)\tIn this Act—\nFamily Court means the Family Court of Australia;\nFederal Court means the Federal Court of Australia;\nFull Court, in relation to a Supreme Court of a State, includes any court of the State to which appeals lie from a single judge of that Supreme Court;\njudgment means a judgment, decree or order, whether final or interlocutory;\nparty, in relation to a proceeding, includes a person who intervenes in the proceeding;\nproceeding does not include a criminal proceeding;\nspecial federal matter has the same meaning as in the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross‑vesting) Act 1987 of the Commonwealth;\nState includes the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory;\nState Family Court, in relation to a State, means a court of that State to which section 41 of the Family Law Act 1975 of the Commonwealth applies by virtue of a proclamation made under section 41(2) of that Act;\nState matter means—\n\t(a)\ta matter in which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction otherwise than by reason of a law of the Commonwealth or of another State; or\n\t(b)\ta matter removed to the Supreme Court under section 8;\nTerritory does not include the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory.\n\t(2)\tA reference in this Act, other than a reference in section 4(3), to the Supreme Court of a State includes, if there is a State Family Court of that State, a reference to that State Family Court.\n\t(3)\tIn this Act, a reference to a Commonwealth Act is a reference to that Act, as amended from time to time.\n3A—Corporations Act of the Commonwealth\nThis Act does not apply to the jurisdiction of courts with which Division 1 of Part 9.6A of the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth deals.\n4—Vesting of additional jurisdiction in certain courts\n\t(3)\tThe Supreme Court of another State or of a Territory has and may exercise original and appellate jurisdiction with respect to State matters.\n\t(4)\tThe State Family Court of another State has and may exercise original and appellate jurisdiction with respect to State matters.\n\t(5)\tThis section does not—\n\t(a)\tinvest a Supreme Court or a State Family Court with; or\n\t(b)\tconfer on any such court,\njurisdiction with respect to criminal matters.\n5—Transfer of proceedings\n\t(1)\tWhere—\n\t(a)\ta proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the relevant proceeding) is pending in the Supreme Court; and\n\t(b)\t—\n\t(ii)\tit appears to the Supreme Court that having regard to—\n\t(A)\twhether, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, apart from any law of the Commonwealth or another State relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction and apart from any accrued jurisdiction of the Federal Court or the Family Court, the relevant proceeding or a substantial part of the relevant proceeding would have been incapable of being instituted in the Supreme Court and capable of being instituted in the Federal Court or the Family Court; and\n\t(B)\tthe extent to which, in the opinion of the Supreme 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 Commonwealth and not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court apart from this Act and any law of the Commonwealth or another State relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction; and\n\t(C)\tthe interests of justice,\nit is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Federal Court or the Family Court, as the case may be,\nthe Supreme Court shall transfer the relevant proceeding to the Federal Court or the Family Court, as the case may be.\n\t(2)\tWhere—\n\t(a)\ta proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the relevant proceeding) is pending in the Supreme Court (in this subsection referred to as the first court); and\n\t(b)\t—\n\t(i)\tit appears to the first court that the relevant proceeding arises out of, or is related to, another proceeding pending in the Supreme Court of another State or of a Territory and it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by that other Supreme Court; or\n\t(ii)\tit appears to the first court that having regard to—\n\t(A)\twhether, in the opinion of the first court, apart from this Act and any law of the Commonwealth or another State relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction, the relevant proceeding or a substantial part of the relevant proceeding would have been incapable of being instituted in the first court and capable of being instituted in the Supreme Court of another State or Territory; and\n\t(B)\tthe 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 subsubparagraph (A) and not within the jurisdiction of the first court apart from this Act and any law of the Commonwealth or another State relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction; and\n\t(C)\tthe interests of justice,\nit is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by that other Supreme Court; or\n\t(iii)\tit appears to the first court that it is otherwise in the interests of justice that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Supreme Court of another State or of a Territory,\nthe first court shall transfer the relevant proceeding to that other Supreme Court.\n\t(3)\tWhere—\n\t(a)\ta proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the relevant proceeding) is pending in the Supreme Court of another State or of a Territory (in this subsection referred to as the first court); and\n\t(b)\t—\n\t(i)\tit appears to the first court that the relevant proceeding arises out of, or is related to, another proceeding pending in the Supreme Court of South Australia and it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Supreme Court of South Australia; or\n\t(ii)\tit appears to the first court that having regard to—\n\t(A)\twhether, in the opinion of the first court, apart from this Act and any law of the Commonwealth or another State relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction, the relevant proceeding or a substantial part of the relevant proceeding would have been incapable of being instituted in the first court and capable of being instituted in the Supreme Court of South Australia; and\n\t(B)\tthe 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 and not within the jurisdiction of the first court apart from this Act and any law of the Commonwealth or another State relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction; and\n\t(C)\tthe interests of justice,\nit is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Supreme Court of South Australia; or\n\t(iii)\tit appears to the first court that it is otherwise in the interests of justice that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Supreme Court of South Australia,\nthe first court shall transfer the relevant proceeding to the Supreme Court of South Australia.\n\t(4)\tWhere—\n\t(a)\ta 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\n\t(b)\t—\n\t(i)\tit appears to the first court that the relevant proceeding arises out of, or is related to, another proceeding pending in the Supreme Court and it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Supreme Court; or\n\t(ii)\tit appears to the first court that having regard to—\n\t(A)\twhether, 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 any law of the Commonwealth or another State relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction; and\n\t(B)\twhether, 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, apart from any law of the Commonwealth or another State relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction; and\n\t(C)\tthe 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 and not within the jurisdiction of the first court apart from any law of the Commonwealth or another State relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction; and\n\t(D)\tthe interests of justice,\nit is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Supreme Court; or\n\t(iii)\tit appears to the first court that it is otherwise in the interests of justice that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Supreme Court,\nthe first court shall transfer the relevant proceeding to the Supreme Court.\n\t(6)\tWhere—\n\t(a)\ta court (in this subsection referred to as the first court) transfers a proceeding to another court under a law or laws relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction; and\n\t(b)\tit appears to the first court that—\n\t(i)\tthere is another proceeding pending in the first court that arises out of, or is related to, the first mentioned proceeding; and\n\t(ii)\tit is in the interests of justice that the other proceeding be determined by the other court,\nthe first court shall transfer the other proceeding to the other court.\n\t(7)\tA court may transfer a proceeding under this section on the application of a party to the proceeding, on its own initiative or on the application of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.\n\t(8)\tA person who is entitled to practise as a barrister or a solicitor, or as both a barrister and a solicitor, in a court has, if a proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the transferred proceeding) in that court is transferred to another court under a law or laws relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction, the same entitlement to practise in relation to—\n\t(a)\tthe transferred proceeding; and\n\t(b)\tany other proceeding out of which the transferred proceeding arises or to which the transferred proceeding is related, being another proceeding that is to be determined together with the transferred proceeding,\nin the other court that the person would have if the other court were a federal court exercising federal jurisdiction.\n\t(9)\tNothing in this section confers on a court jurisdiction that the court would not otherwise have.\n6—Special federal matters\n\t(1)\tIf—\n\t(a)\ta matter for determination in a proceeding that is pending in the Supreme Court is a special federal matter; and\n\t(b)\tthe court does not make an order under subsection (3) in respect of the matter,\nthe court must transfer the proceeding in accordance with this section to the Federal Court or a court mentioned in subsection (2)(b).\n\t(1a)\tHowever, the court must only transfer so much of the proceeding as is, in the opinion of the court, within the jurisdiction (including the accrued jurisdiction) of the Federal Court, or the court mentioned in subsection (2)(b), as the case may be.\n\t(2)\tIf the court orders that a proceeding or part of a proceeding be transferred, the proceeding or part of the proceeding must be transferred—\n\t(a)\tif the matter for determination in the proceeding is a matter mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of the definition of special federal matter in section 3(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 of the Commonwealth—to the Federal Court; or\n\t(b)\tif the matter for determination in the proceeding is a matter mentioned in paragraph (ab) of that definition—to whichever of the Family Court, the Family Court of Western Australia or the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, in the opinion of the court, is appropriate in the circumstances.\n\t(3)\tThe Supreme Court may order that the proceeding be determined by that court if it is satisfied that there are special reasons for doing so in the particular circumstances of the proceeding other than reasons relevant to the convenience of the parties.\n\t(4)\tBefore making an order under subsection (3), the court must be satisfied that—\n\t(a)\ta written notice specifying the nature of the special federal matter has been given to the Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth and the Attorney‑General of the State; and\n\t(b)\ta reasonable time has elapsed since the giving of the notice for the Attorneys‑General to consider whether submissions to the court should be made in relation to the proceeding.\n\t(5)\tFor the purposes of subsection (4), the court—\n\t(a)\tmay adjourn the proceeding for such time as the court thinks necessary and may make such order as to costs in relation to an adjournment as it thinks fit; and\n\t(b)\tmay direct a party to the proceeding to give a notice in accordance with that subsection.\n\t(6)\tIn considering whether there are special reasons for the purposes of subsection (3), the court must—\n\t(a)\thave regard to the general rule that special federal matters should be heard by the Federal Court or a court mentioned in subsection (2)(b), whichever is appropriate in the particular case; and\n\t(b)\ttake into account any submission made in relation to the proceeding by an Attorney-General mentioned in subsection (4).\n\t(7)\tNothing in this section prevents the court granting urgent relief of an interlocutory nature if it is in the interests of justice to do so.\n\t(8)\tIf, through inadvertence, the Supreme Court determines a proceeding of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) without—\n\t(a)\tthe court making an order under subsection (3) that the proceeding be determined by the court; or\n\t(b)\ta notice mentioned in subsection (4) being given,\nnothing in this section invalidates the decision of the court.\n\t(9)\tThis section does not apply to a proceeding by way of an appeal that is instituted in the Full Court of the Supreme Court if the court the decision of which is the subject of the appeal had made an order under subsection (3), or under section 6(1) as in force before the commencement of Part 3 of the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Act 1993, in relation to the special federal matter.\n6A—Special federal matters: Commonwealth authorities or officers acting under the laws of States\n\t(1)\tThis section applies to a proceeding (the federal matter proceeding) if—\n\t(a)\ta matter for determination in the proceeding is covered by paragraph (c) or (e) of the definition of special federal matter in section 3(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 of the Commonwealth; and\n\t(b)\tthe matter for determination in the proceeding involves or relates to the exercise, or purported or proposed exercise, of functions or powers conferred on a Commonwealth authority, or officer of the Commonwealth, by an enactment (the State enactment) referred to in paragraph (ca) or (cb) of the definition of enactment in section 3(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 of the Commonwealth; and\n\t(c)\tthe matter for determination in the proceeding arises out of, or relates to, another proceeding (the State matter proceeding) pending in any court of this State—\n\t(i)\tthat arises, or a substantial part of which arises, under the State enactment or a corresponding enactment of another State; and\n\t(ii)\tnone of the matters for determination in which are covered in paragraphs (c) or (e) of the definition of special federal matter in section 3(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 of the Commonwealth,\nregardless of which proceeding was commenced first.\n\t(2)\tIf—\n\t(a)\tthe federal matter proceeding is pending in the Federal Court or the Family Court; and\n\t(b)\thaving regard to the interests of justice, including the desirability of related proceedings being heard in the same jurisdiction, the Federal Court or the Family Court considers it appropriate to transfer the proceeding to the Supreme Court,\nthe Federal Court or the Family Court may transfer the proceeding to the Supreme Court.\n\t(3)\tSection 5(4) does not apply to the federal matter proceeding.\n\t(4)\tIf the federal matter proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court and the State matter proceeding is pending in any court of this State—\n\t(a)\tneither section 5(1) nor section 6 applies to require the Supreme Court to transfer the federal matter proceeding to the Federal Court or the Family Court; but\n\t(b)\tthe Supreme Court may do so if it considers that to be appropriate, having regard to the interests of justice, including the desirability of related proceedings being heard in the same jurisdiction.\n\t(5)\tNothing in this section confers on a court jurisdiction that the court would not otherwise have.\n\t(6)\tThe fact that references in this section to the interests of justice include the desirability of related proceedings being heard in the same jurisdiction does not of itself mean that references to the interests of justice elsewhere in this Act do not include that matter.\n\t(7)\tIn this section—\nCommonwealth authority means an authority or other body (whether incorporated or not) that is established or continued in existence by or under an Act of the Commonwealth;\nofficer of the Commonwealth has the same meaning as in section 75(v) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.\n7—Institution and hearing of appeals\n\t(1)\tAn appeal shall not be instituted from a decision of a single judge of the Federal Court or the Family Court to the Full Court of the Supreme Court.\n\t(2)\tAn appeal shall not be instituted from the Federal Court or the Family Court to the other of those courts.\n\t(3)\tWhere it appears that the only matters for determination in a proceeding by way of an appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court are matters other than matters arising under an Act specified in the Schedule to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 of the Commonwealth, that proceeding shall be instituted only in, and shall be determined only by, the Full Court of the Supreme Court.\n\t(4)\tSubject to subsections (6) and (7), where it appears that a matter for determination in a proceeding by way of an appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court (not being a proceeding to which subsection (5) applies) is a matter arising under an Act specified in the Schedule referred to in subsection (3), that proceeding shall be instituted only in, and shall be determined only by—\n\t(a)\tthe Full Court of the Federal Court or of the Family Court, as the case requires; or\n\t(b)\twith special leave of the High Court, the High Court.\n\t(5)\tA proceeding by way of an appeal from a decision of a judge of a State Family Court, being a proceeding involving the determination of—\n\t(a)\ta matter arising under an Act specified in the Schedule referred to in subsection (3); and\n\t(b)\tanother matter,\nmay be dealt with as if no matter for determination in the proceeding were a matter arising under an Act specified in that Schedule.\n\t(6)\tWhere—\n\t(a)\tthe Full Court of the Supreme Court commences to hear a proceeding by way of an appeal; and\n\t(b)\tbefore the Court determines the proceeding, it appears to the Court that the proceeding is a proceeding to which subsection (4) applies,\nthe Court shall, unless the interests of justice require that the Court proceed to determine the proceeding, transfer the proceeding to the Full Court of the Federal Court or of the Family Court, as the case requires.\n\t(7)\tWhere the Full Court of the Supreme Court—\n\t(a)\tdetermines a proceeding to which subsection (4) applies as mentioned in subsection (6); or\n\t(b)\tthrough inadvertence, determines a proceeding to which subsection (4) applies,\nnothing in this section invalidates the decision of that Court.\n8—Orders by Supreme Court\n\t(1)\tWhere—\n\t(a)\ta proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the relevant proceeding) is pending in—\n\t(i)\ta court, other than the Supreme Court, of the State; or\n\t(ii)\ta tribunal established by or under an Act; and\n\t(b)\tit appears to the Supreme Court that—\n\t(i)\tthe relevant proceeding arises out of, or is related to, another proceeding pending in the Federal Court, the Family Court or the Supreme Court of another State or of a Territory and, if an order is made under this subsection in relation to the relevant proceeding, there would be grounds on which that other proceeding could be transferred to the Supreme Court; or\n\t(ii)\tan order should be made under this subsection in relation to the relevant proceeding so that consideration can be given to whether the relevant proceeding should be transferred to another court,\nthe Supreme Court may, on the application of a party to the relevant proceeding or on its own initiative, make an order removing the relevant proceeding to the Supreme Court.\n\t(2)\tWhere an order is made under subsection (1) in relation to a proceeding, this Act applies in relation to the proceeding as if it were a proceeding pending in the Supreme Court.\n\t(3)\tWhere a proceeding is removed to the Supreme Court in accordance with an order made under subsection (1), the Supreme Court may, if the Supreme Court considers it appropriate to do so, remit the proceeding to the court or tribunal from which the proceeding was removed.\n9—Exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to cross-vesting laws\nThe Supreme Court—\n\t(a)\tmay exercise jurisdiction (whether original or appellate) conferred on that court by a provision of this Act or of a law of the Commonwealth or a State relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction; and\n\t(b)\tmay hear and determine a proceeding transferred to that court under such a provision.\n10—Transfer of matters arising under Division 1 or 1A of Part V of Trade Practices Act (Commonwealth)\nWhere—\n\t(a)\ta proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of another State or of a Territory; and\n\t(b)\ta matter for determination in the proceeding is a matter arising under Division 1 or 1A of Part 5 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 of the Commonwealth; and\n\t(c)\tno matter for determination in the proceeding is a special federal matter; and\n\t(d)\tthe proceeding is not a proceeding by way of an appeal from a judgment of a court; and\n\t(e)\ta court of the State, other than the Supreme Court, has jurisdiction with respect to all of the matters for determination in the proceeding,\nthe court referred to in paragraph (a) may, on the application of a party to the proceeding or on its own initiative, transfer the proceeding to the court referred to in paragraph (e).\n11—Conduct of proceedings\n\t(1)\tWhere it appears to a court that the court will, or will be likely to, in determining a matter for determination in a proceeding, be exercising jurisdiction conferred by this Act or by a law of the Commonwealth or a State relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction—\n\t(a)\tsubject to paragraphs (b) and (c), the court shall, in determining that matter, apply the law in force in the State or Territory in which the court is sitting (including choice of law rules); and\n\t(b)\tsubject to paragraph (c), if that matter is a right of action arising under a written law of another State or Territory, the court shall, in determining that matter, apply the written and unwritten law of that other State or Territory; and\n\t(c)\tthe rules of evidence and procedure to be applied in dealing with that matter shall be such as the court considers appropriate in the circumstances, being rules that are applied in a superior court in Australia or in an external Territory.\n\t(3)\tWhere a proceeding is transferred or removed to a court (in this subsection referred to as the transferee court) from another court (in this subsection referred to as the transferor court), the transferee court shall deal with the proceeding as if, subject to any order of the transferee court, the steps that had been taken for the purposes of the proceeding in the transferor court (including the making of an order), or similar steps, had been taken in the transferee court.\n12—Orders as to costs\nWhere a proceeding is transferred or removed to a court, that court may make an order as to costs that relate to the conduct of the proceeding before the transfer or removal if those costs have not already been dealt with by another court.\n13—Limitation on appeals\nAn appeal does not lie from a decision of a court—\n\t(a)\tin relation to the transfer or removal of a proceeding under this Act; or\n\t(b)\tas to which rules of evidence and procedure are to be applied pursuant to section 11(1).\n14—Enforcement and effect of judgments\n\t(2)\tA judgment of the Supreme Court that is given, in whole or in part, in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by a law or laws relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction is enforceable in the State as if the judgment had been given entirely in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court apart from any such law.\n\t(3)\tWhere—\n\t(a)\ta provision of a law of the State (not being a law relating to the enforcement of judgments) refers to a thing done by the Supreme Court; and\n\t(b)\tthat thing is done by another court in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by this Act,\nthe reference in that provision to the Supreme Court shall be read as a reference to that other court.\n15—Suspension or cessation of operation of Act\n\t(1)\tSubject to subsection (2), the Governor may by proclamation—\n\t(a)\tsuspend the operation of this Act from a day (being a day not earlier than three years after the commencement of this Act) specified in the proclamation; and\n\t(b)\trevoke any such suspension.\n\t(2)\tThe Governor shall not make a proclamation suspending the operation of this Act unless satisfied that the Attorney-General has given notice of intention to seek the making of such a proclamation to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and to the Attorneys-General of each other State (other than a State in relation to which a proclamation under subsection (4) has been made) not less than 6 months before the suspension is to take effect.\n\t(3)\tIf the Governor is satisfied that the Acts of the Commonwealth and other States relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction are not effective to invest the Supreme Court of South Australia with, or confer on that Court, jurisdiction of the Federal Court, the Family Court or the Supreme Court of another State or of a Territory, the Governor may, by proclamation, fix a day on which this Act will expire.\n\t(4)\tIf the Governor is satisfied that an Act of the Commonwealth or another State relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction has been repealed, rendered inoperative, suspended or altered in a substantial manner, the Governor may, by proclamation, modify the operation of this Act so that it does not apply in relation to the Commonwealth or a Territory or in relation to that State.\n\t(5)\tIf—\n\t(a)\tthe Governor has made a proclamation under subsection (4) in relation to the Commonwealth or a Territory or a State; and\n\t(b)\tthe Governor is satisfied that there is in force an Act of the Commonwealth or that State relating to cross-vesting of jurisdiction, being an Act in terms substantially corresponding to the terms of this Act,\nthe Governor may, by proclamation, revoke the proclamation under subsection (4).\n\t(6)\tThe Governor shall not make a proclamation under this section except on resolution of both Houses of Parliament.\nLegislative history\nNotes\n\t•\tPlease note—References in the legislation to other legislation or instruments or to titles of bodies or offices are not automatically updated as part of the program for the revision and publication of legislation and therefore may be obsolete.\n\t•\tEarlier versions of this Act (historical versions) are listed at the end of the legislative history.\n\t•\tFor further information relating to the Act and subordinate legislation made under the Act see the Index of South Australian Statutes or www.legislation.sa.gov.au.\nExpiry of Act\nThe Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 will expire on a date to be fixed by proclamation: see s 15(3).\nPrincipal Act and amendments\nNew entries appear in bold.\nYear\nNo\nTitle\nAssent\nCommencement\n1987\n67\nJurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987\n29.10.1987\n1.7.1988 (Gazette 2.6.1988 p1798)\n1993\n34\nStatutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Act 1993\n13.5.1993\nss 6 & 7—13.12.1993 (Gazette 25.11.1993 p2546)\n1994\n21\nStatutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Act 1994\n26.5.1994\n7.7.1994 (Gazette 7.7.1994 p4)\n2000\n74\nStatutes Amendment (Federal Courts—State Jurisdiction) Act 2000\n14.12.2000\nPt 6 (ss 35—41)—28.1.2001 (Gazette 25.1.2001 p301)\n2001\n20\nCorporations (Ancillary Provisions) Act 2001\n14.6.2001\ns 30—15.7.2001 immediately before the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth came into operation: Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S 285, 13 July 2001: s 2\n2004\n7\nAustralian Crime Commission (South Australia) Act 2004\n8.4.2004\nSch 1 (cl 2)—6.5.2004 (Gazette 6.5.2004 p1227)\n2006\n17\nStatutes Amendment (New Rules of Civil Procedure) Act 2006\n6.7.2006\nPt 42 (ss 144—146)—4.9.2006 (Gazette 17.8.2006 p2831)\nProvisions amended\nNew entries appear in bold.\nEntries that relate to provisions that have been deleted appear in italics.\nProvision\nHow varied\nCommencement\ns 2\nomitted under Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002\n6.5.2004\ns 3\n\n\ns 3(1)\n\n\nspecial federal matter\namended by 7/2004 Sch 1 (cl 2)\n6.5.2004\nState\nsubstituted by 21/1994 s 8(a)\n7.7.1994\nTerritory\nsubstituted by 21/1994 s 8(b)\n7.7.1994\ns 3A\ninserted by 20/2001 s 30\n15.7.2001\ns 4\n\n\ns 4(1) and (2)\ndeleted by 74/2000 s 35(a)\n28.1.2001\ns 4(5)\namended by 74/2000 s 35(b)\n28.1.2001\ns 5\n\n\ns 5(1)\n(b)(i) deleted by 74/2000 s 36(a)\n28.1.2001\n\n(b)(iii) deleted by 74/2000 s 36(d)\n28.1.2001\n\namended by 74/2000 s 36(b), (c)\n28.1.2001\ns 5(4)\namended by 74/2000 s 36(e)\n28.1.2001\ns 5(5)\ndeleted by 74/2000 s 36(f)\n28.1.2001\ns 5(7)\namended by 17/2006 s 144\n4.9.2006\ns 5(9)\ninserted by 74/2000 s 36(g)\n28.1.2001\ns 6\nsubstituted by 34/1993 s 6\n13.12.1993\ns 6(1a)\ninserted by 74/2000 s 37(a)\n28.1.2001\ns 6(2)\namended by 74/2000 s 37(b)\n28.1.2001\ns 6A\ninserted by 74/2000 s 38\n28.1.2001\ns 8\n\n\ns 8(1)\namended by 17/2006 s 145\n4.9.2006\ns 10\namended by 74/2000 s 39\n28.1.2001\n\namended by 17/2006 s 146\n4.9.2006\ns 11\n\n\ns 11(2)\ndeleted by 74/2000 s 40\n28.1.2001\ns 14\n\n\ns 14(1)\ndeleted by 74/2000 s 41\n28.1.2001\nTransitional etc provisions associated with Act or amendments\nStatutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Act 1993\n7—Application\nDespite the amendments of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 made by this Act, that Act as in force immediately before the commencement of those amendments continues to apply in relation to a proceeding pending in a court to which section 6 of that Act applied before that commencement.\nHistorical versions\nReprint No 1—13.12.1993\n\nReprint No 2—7.7.1994\n\nReprint No 3—28.1.2001\n\nReprint No 4—15.7.2001\n\n6.5.2004\n\n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"model":"kimi-k2.6","source":"moonshot-batch-reanalyse","citationCount":11,"completionTokens":3561},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"While the Act retains its original purpose of facilitating cross-vesting, its scope has been significantly refined and narrowed through amendments. The 2001 insertion of section 3A excludes corporations law from the scheme, and the 2000 insertion of section 6A introduced a specialised regime for Commonwealth authorities acting under State laws. The 2000 amendments also deleted several original vesting provisions in section 4 and transfer provisions in section 5, replacing them with more conditional, interest-of-justice based tests. Consequently, the Act is now more targeted and less of a blanket cross-vesting mechanism than its 1987 original."},"complexity_factors":["Extensive cross-referencing to at least six Commonwealth Acts and corresponding laws of other jurisdictions","Nested conditional tests for transferring proceedings, including multi-tiered sub-paragraphs in section 5 balancing jurisdictional capability, governing law, and interests of justice","Mandatory transfer regime for 'special federal matters' under section 6 with exceptions for 'special reasons' and notice requirements to Attorneys-General","Section 6A creates a further carve-out for Commonwealth authorities exercising State powers, adding overlapping transfer rules","Section 7 imposes conditional appeal pathways depending on whether matters arise under scheduled federal legislation","Section 11 requires courts to apply different choice-of-law and evidence/procedure rules depending on the origin of the cross-vested jurisdiction","Contains suspension and expiry mechanisms (section 15) contingent on actions by other jurisdictions"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this law does**\n\nThis law is part of a national scheme that lets Australian courts — including the South Australian Supreme Court, federal courts, and courts of other States and Territories — share power to hear certain civil cases. The goal is to avoid the cost and delay that happen when a case is brought in a court that technically cannot hear it.\n\n**Key points**\n\n- **Sharing jurisdiction:** The SA Supreme Court can hear some matters that normally belong to the Federal Court, the Family Court, or courts of other States and Territories. Those courts can also hear some SA matters.\n- **Transferring cases:** If a case is started in a court that is not the best place for it, the court can transfer the case to a more appropriate court. The decision depends on what the case is about, which laws are involved, and the overall interests of justice.\n- **Special federal matters:** Certain important federal issues (called \"special federal matters\") generally must be transferred to the Federal Court or Family Court, unless there is a strong reason to keep them in the Supreme Court.\n- **Commonwealth authorities acting under State law:** If a federal body or officer is exercising powers given by a State law, special rules apply to decide whether the case stays in a State court or goes to a federal court.\n- **What is excluded:** The law does **not** apply to criminal cases or to cases under the *Corporations Act 2001* (the national companies law).\n- **Rules for hearings:** When a court hears a matter under this law, it generally applies the law of the place where it is sitting, but uses evidence and procedure rules it considers appropriate.\n- **Appeals and enforcement:** The law restricts certain appeals and makes sure judgments given under cross-vesting powers can be enforced in SA like any other Supreme Court judgment.\n- **Safety valve:** If another State or the Commonwealth pulls out of the cross-vesting scheme, the SA Governor can suspend or end this law."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act’s operational scope has been altered since enactment by later amendments. Notable changes recorded in the legislative history include insertion of a Corporations Act exclusion (s3A inserted by Corporations (Ancillary Provisions) Act 2001), deletion of earlier provisions in s4 by the 2000 Federal Courts—State Jurisdiction amendments (s4(1)–(2) deleted), and other amendments affecting transfer rules and special federal matter procedures (see Legislative history and the table of provisions amended). Those amendments narrow or reconfigure which subject‑matters and courts are affected and add particular exceptions and procedural regimes (e.g. s3A; s6 and s6A as substituted/inserted by 1993 and 2000 amendments)."},"complexity_factors":["Cross‑jurisdictional transfer tests rely on multi‑part, subjective standards (\"more appropriate\", \"interests of justice\", whether a matter \"would have been incapable of being instituted\") (s5(1)–(4)).","Special federal matters regime requires procedural notice to Attorneys‑General and a separate \"special reasons\" retention test (s6(3)–(6)), adding intergovernmental coordination obligations.","Multiple directional transfer pathways (State ↔ State, State ↔ Federal, Federal ↔ State, court/tribunal removal and remission) with differing tests and exceptions (s5, s8, s6A).","Choice‑of‑law and procedure rules differ by context; substantive law applied may be that of the transferee State unless a right arises under another State’s written law, while procedural/evidence rules are set by the transferee court (s11(1)–(3)).","Limits on appeals from transfer decisions and on certain appellate routes create finality in some procedural rulings, increasing stakes of pre‑transfer litigation strategy (s7, s13).","Specific statutory carve‑outs and amendments (Corporations Act exclusion at s3A; Trade Practices pathway at s10) require cross‑checking with Commonwealth legislation and schedules mentioned in s7(3)–(4).","Governor’s power to suspend, modify or expire the Act is subject to intergovernmental notice and parliamentary resolution, adding an administrative layer to legal operation (s15(1)–(6)).","History of amendments and deletions across multiple years means users must track which provisions have been altered or removed (Legislative history notes)."],"plain_english_summary":"# What this law does\n\nThis Act sets rules for allowing courts in South Australia, other Australian States and Territories, and federal courts to hear and transfer civil (non‑criminal) cases between each other so that disputes can be heard in the most appropriate court. The stated purpose in the preamble is to reduce inconvenience and expense to litigants and to provide a system for transferring proceedings when a case is started in an inappropriate court (Preamble).\n\n# Who it affects\n\n- Litigants and parties to civil proceedings (the Act excludes criminal proceedings) (s3(1)).\n- State and Territory Supreme Courts (including State Family Courts where relevant), the Federal Court and the Family Court (s3(1), s4(3)–(4)).\n- Attorneys‑General (Commonwealth and States) when special federal matters are involved (s6(4)).\n- Legal practitioners in relation to entitlement to practise after a transfer (s5(8)).\n\n# Key, mechanical effects (how it works)\n\n- Vesting of jurisdiction: The Act allows other State Supreme Courts and State Family Courts to exercise original and appellate jurisdiction in State matters (s4(3)–(4)). It excludes criminal jurisdiction (s4(5)).\n\n- Transfers between courts: A court may or must transfer a proceeding where, having regard to whether the matter would have been capable of being instituted in a different court apart from cross‑vesting laws, the interests of justice, and questions about the application or validity of Commonwealth or State law, it is more appropriate for another court to determine the matter (detailed tests in s5(1)–(4); s5(6)–(7)). Transfers may be made on a party’s application, on the court’s own initiative, or on application by an Attorney‑General (s5(7)).\n\n- Special federal matters: If a matter before a Supreme Court is a defined \"special federal matter,\" the court generally must transfer the proceeding (or the part of it within federal jurisdiction) to the Federal Court or an appropriate court unless the Supreme Court makes a specific order to retain it for \"special reasons\" (s6(1)–(3), s6(1a)). The court must give notice to the Commonwealth and State Attorneys‑General and allow time for submissions before retaining such a matter (s6(4)–(6)).\n\n- Commonwealth authorities/officers: The Act contains special rules for proceedings that involve Commonwealth authorities or officers exercising powers under State laws, permitting transfers either way where it promotes hearing related matters in the same jurisdiction (s6A(1)–(4)).\n\n- Appeals and limits: The Act limits certain appeals between federal and State courts (for example, no appeal from a single judge of the Federal or Family Court to a State Full Court) and creates rules about where appeals involving federal acts must be instituted (s7). Appeals are not available against transfer decisions or the determination of which rules of evidence/procedure apply (s13).\n\n- Procedure, law applied and rights of practitioners: A transferee court applies the law of the State in which it sits to matters it determines unless a right of action arises under another State’s written law (s11(1)). The transferee court treats steps already taken in the transferor court as if taken in the transferee court (s11(3)). A practitioner entitled to practise in the transferor court retains entitlements to practise in the transferee court for the transferred matter (s5(8)).\n\n- Costs and enforcement: A court that receives a transferred matter may make orders about costs incurred before transfer (s12). A judgment given by a Supreme Court using cross‑vested jurisdiction is enforceable as if given using the Court’s ordinary jurisdiction (s14(2)).\n\n- Interaction with Commonwealth legislation: The Act does not apply to court jurisdiction dealt with under Division 1 of Part 9.6A of the Corporations Act 2001 (s3A). The Act includes specific transfer rules for some Trade Practices matters (s10).\n\n- Suspension or expiry: The Governor may suspend, revoke suspension, expire or modify the Act by proclamation in specified circumstances, but certain procedures and intergovernmental notices are required and proclamations require parliamentary resolution (s15).\n\n# Official rationale (as stated in the Act)\n\nThe Preamble says the Act is intended to reduce inconvenience and expense caused by jurisdictional limits and to ensure matters that would be primarily within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, Family Court or a State Supreme Court are instituted and determined in that court while allowing one court to determine federal and State matters together where appropriate (Preamble).\n\n# Testing the rationale against mechanics, incentives and trade‑offs\n\n- Who pays and who decides: Parties pay the direct costs of additional steps (applications, notices, hearings) triggered by transfer rules; courts exercise significant discretionary decision‑making power when applying tests of \"more appropriate\" forum and \"interests of justice\" (s5, s6, s6A). Attorneys‑General can intervene or trigger considerations by receiving mandatory notices for special federal matters (s6(4)).\n\n- Incentives and forum effects: The Act changes the legal incentives around forum and forum‑choice: it enables transfer from an initial forum to a different court when statutory tests are met (s5). That alters the likely venue for federal or State questions and therefore affects where litigants, including businesses, will incur litigation costs and where specialist courts (Federal Court, Family Court, State Supreme Courts) will hear particular subject‑matter disputes (Preamble; s4; s5; s6). The Act leaves intact some statutory limits (for example exclusion in s3A for specified Corporations Act jurisdiction).\n\n- Compliance burden and procedural costs: The Act imposes procedural steps: giving written notices to Attorneys‑General before a Supreme Court retains a special federal matter (s6(4)), and dealing with choice‑of‑law and procedure rules at the transferee court (s11). Parties and lawyers must manage transfer applications, possible adjournments to allow government submissions (s6(4)–(5)), and changes in applicable substantive or procedural law (s11(1)–(3)). Those are direct compliance costs and can create delay.\n\n- Bureaucratic discretion and coordination risk: The tests in s5, s6 and s6A rely on judicial discretion about what is \"more appropriate,\" \"interests of justice\" and \"special reasons\" (s5(1)–(4); s6(3)). The Governor has power to alter the Act’s operation across jurisdictions subject to intergovernmental notice and parliamentary resolution (s15). Those features create implementation risks tied to intergovernmental coordination (s15(2)–(6)) and judicial assessment variability.\n\n- Effects on private enterprise and markets (mechanisms only): By changing where commercial disputes and regulatory matters can be tried, the Act alters litigation location costs, possible access to specialist federal courts, and the forum‑driven aspects of dispute strategy. The Act itself excludes certain Corporations Act jurisdiction (s3A) and provides a specific transfer pathway for some Trade Practices matters to lower State courts when appropriate (s10), so the practical jurisdictional footprint for businesses is shaped by these provisions.\n\n# Trade‑offs and risks highlighted by the Act\n\n- Centralising related proceedings in one jurisdiction can reduce duplicate litigation but requires careful judicial assessment and may cause procedural delay (s5, s6A).\n- Mandatory notice and time for Attorneys‑General advance intergovernmental oversight but add procedural steps and delay (s6(4)–(5)).\n- The Act grants courts discretion to retain or transfer matters; that discretion creates variable outcomes and places the burden of forum choice resolution on judges rather than on parties alone (s5, s6).\n\n# Practical takeaways\n\n- If you are a party in civil litigation that raises Commonwealth or out‑of‑State legal questions, this Act can move your case between State and federal courts according to statutory tests about appropriateness and the interests of justice (s5, s6).\n- Expect procedural notices, potential adjournments if special federal matters are involved (s6(4)–(5)), and that courts will apply the law of the State where they sit unless a matter arises under another State’s written law (s11(1)–(2)).\n- Some subject areas are excluded or specially handled (Corporations Act carve‑out at s3A; Trade Practices matters at s10).\n\n(References: Preamble; ss 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7–8, 10–15.)"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/sa-jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987","history":"/api/acts/sa-jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987/history","analysis":"/api/acts/sa-jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/sa-jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/sa-jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/sa-jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987/documents"}}