ACT court seeks possession application despite Victoria order for such

ACT Supreme Court proceedings

Before Justice Muller of the ACT Supreme Court, issues arose regarding the VSC’s power to make orders in rem beyond Victoria’s geographical limits, as well as the enforceability of the VSC’s orders under s 105 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) (SEPA). 

Thus, Justice Muller directed the plaintiff to file written submissions on the following questions: 

• whether, under s 105 of the SEPA, the plaintiff accepted that the VSC judgment registerable in the ACT was limited to order 3, and if not, why the ACT Supreme Court should conclude otherwise 
• if the ACT Supreme Court should determine otherwise, what was the VSC’s power to order the possession of land in the ACT 
• if the plaintiff accepted that the VSC judgment registrable in the ACT was limited to order 3, whether the plaintiff was content to apply for a possession order over the ACT land 

ACT Supreme Court’s orders

The ACT Supreme Court dismissed the application in the proceeding lodged on 5 August 2026 without application costs. The court then directed the plaintiff to file and serve an application for possession in compliance with rr 1118, 1119, and 1124 of the Court Procedures Rules. 

Regarding order 3 of the Victorian default judgment, in connection with the sum of money plus interest and costs, the ACT Supreme Court confirmed that it was registered in the ACT and enforceable as a debt. 

As for orders 1 and 2, the ACT Supreme Court required the plaintiff to apply separately before it for the delivery of possession of land and file a supporting affidavit meeting the requirements of rr 1118, 1119, and 1124. 

The ACT Supreme Court found the currently available evidence insufficient to support such an application. 

Scope of s 105 of SEPA

The ACT Supreme Court explained that s 105(5) limited its capacity to enforce a judgment registered under r 2010A of the Court Procedures Rules to a judgment capable of enforcement by either the VSC that made the order or another Victorian court. 

To the extent that the judgment registered was unenforceable by a court of the jurisdiction of inception, the ACT Supreme Court did not find it enforceable under s 105(5). 

Victorian court’s power to order possession of ACT land

According to the ACT Supreme Court, s 85 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) did not extend the VSC’s jurisdiction to make orders in rem beyond Victoria’s geographical limits.

The ACT Supreme Court acknowledged a potential alternative pathway under the cross-vested jurisdiction in each of the superior state-based courts. However, the ACT Supreme Court did not find this possible alternative pathway applicable here. 

The ACT Supreme Court was unclear about: 

• whether the parties expressly submitted to the VSC’s non-exclusive jurisdiction 
• whether the prothonotary making the orders sought to exercise ACT jurisdiction under the relevant cross-vesting legislation 
• whether the prothonotary could exercise cross-vesting jurisdiction

ACT Supreme Court’s previous cases

Here are some other recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. 

In a proceeding involving a costs dispute, the court issued a 14 August 2026 order for counsel to pay two ex-clients’ ordinary appeal costs, plus half of the assessment costs under s 302(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT). 

In a defendant’s application for security for the costs of engaging legal representation in proceedings, the court made an 8 May 2026 decision stating that she could not recover legal costs until she actually engaged lawyers, with statements of future intention being unhelpful. 

On 21 April 2026, the court ruled that a corporate director’s reliance on generative artificial intelligence (genAI) to produce written submissions, including nonexistent legal authority, weighed against accepting his legal qualifications as a factor placing him above a lay person seeking to represent the corporation. 

Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!