Legal Employment Consulting and Training Pty Ltd v Patterson

District Court of NSW|2009-10-02|Before: Titanium Minerals P, Training P

The application of the Legal Practitioners Act ss384 & ss385 and the issue re subrogation essentially disposes of this matter. However, I feel I should also comment on some of the orders sought in the summons. Orders 4, 6, 7, and 8 in the summons seek declarations by the District Court.

23.The courts jurisdiction in equity proceedings is governed by s134, and s46 of the District Court Act 1973. The District Court is a statutory court and its equitable jurisdiction is confined by the Act. It does not include the power to grant declaratory relief and nothing has been placed before me to persuade me otherwise. I would also point out that as far as I have been able to ascertain the Local Court is likewise unable to grant declaratory relief, under s65 of the Local Courts Act 1982 as would then have applied. In any event, as the hearing is a re-hearing the declarations sought are unnecessary surplusage.

24.This court has no jurisdiction to deal with the summons.

ii. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion and the proceedings.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.

CITATION: Legal Employment Consulting and Training Pty Ltd v Patterson [2009] NSWDC 357

Turner v Pride [1999] NSWSC 850 CASES CITED: Poole v Turner 2004 NSWSC 708. Coshott v Woollahra M.C. 2008 NSWCA 176, Dyktynski v BHP Titanium Minerals P/L 2004 60 NSWLR 203

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (2)

Cited By (2)