NAHMIAS, Justice.

We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the dismissal of Cecily Considine’s lawsuit against the receivers appointed in her separate lawsuit against Michael Affatato on the ground that the receivers have official immunity. We conclude that this lawsuit against the receivers should instead have been dismissed on the ground that Considine failed to obtain leave from the trial court in her lawsuit against Affatato before filing a separate lawsuit against the receivers appointed in that case. We affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment on this ground, and we therefore vacate the court’s discussion of immunity.

stipulation and consent order expanding the receivers’ authorization “to include all powers allowed a receiver under Georgia law.”

On September 29, 2010, while her lawsuit against Affatato was still pending and without seeking prior approval from the court in that case, Considine filed a separate lawsuit in the Superior Court of Cherokee County against Murphy and M&M, raising claims of gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty based on their alleged mismanagement of the receivership; she later amended her complaint to add additional claims. The receivers filed a motion to dismiss under OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (1), asserting that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on their official immunity and Considine’s failure to obtain leave of court in the Affatato case before filing a separate lawsuit against them. The trial court held a hearing on the motion, but Considine voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit against the receivers before the court issued an order.

On October 13, 2011, again without seeking prior approval from the court in the Affatato lawsuit, Considine filed the lawsuit now at issue against the receivers, raising claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, and willful and wanton misconduct and seeking an accounting, damages, and other relief. On December 20, 2011, the receivers again filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction along with a verified answer raising as defenses, among other things, official immunity and Considine’s failure to obtain leave in the Affatato case to sue the receivers. Eight days later, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, finding that “because Defendants [Murphy and M&M] were acting in their capacity as a court appointed receiver, they are entitled to official immunity [under the Georgia Constitution].”

In Considine v. Murphy, 320 Ga. App. 316 (739 SE2d 777) (2013) (Considine I), the Court of Appeals reversed that judgment on the ground that the trial court ruled on the motion to dismiss less than 30 days after it was filed, depriving Considine of proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. See id. at 317-318. On remand, Considine filed a response to the motion to dismiss, but on June 5, 2013, the trial court again dismissed the complaint based on official immunity. In Considine v. Murphy, 327 Ga. App. 110 (755 SE2d 556) (2014) (Considine II), the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding in Divisions 1 and 2 of its opinion that the trial court correctly determined that Murphy and M&M were court-appointed receivers and that Considine had waived her argument that M&M could not be appointed as a receiver because it was a corporate entity. See id. at 112-114. In Division 3, the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Considine’s lawsuit against the receivers based on official immunity, explaining that the receivers’ duties were discretionary and Considine did not “point to any evidence in the record . . . that [the receivers] acted with. . . actual malice.” Id. at 115.

This Court granted Considine’s petition for certiorari, noting two issues with which we were particularly concerned: (1) Under what circumstances is a court-appointed receiver entitled to immunity from suit?, and (2) Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court’s order granting the motion to dismiss based on a failure to present evidence of actual malice?1 Upon review of the entire record, however, we have determined that we need not address those issues to properly resolve this case.^[2]

This rule, sometimes called the “Barton doctrine,” remains a matter of subject matter jurisdiction in Georgia courts. See Fried v. Sullivan, 27 Ga. App. 326, 327 (108 SE 127) (1921) (“While the courts are not all agreed in holding that leave to sue a receiver is jurisdictional and essential to the maintaining of an action, this is not an open question in Georgia.”). In states like Georgia that treat the rule as jurisdictional, the prior-leave requirement applies even to a separate lawsuit filed in the same court that appointed the receiver. See, e.g., Links v. Conn. River Banking Co., 33 A. 1003, 1004 (Conn. 1895) (“A receiver appointed by judicial authority cannot, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, be subjected to suit without the leave of the court whose officer he is, granted in the cause in which he was appointed.”). See also R.E. LaG., Annotation, Failure to Obtain Permission to Sue Receiver as Affecting Jurisdiction of Action, 29 ALR 1460 (1924).

The administration of [the company’s] estate is in the hands of the [s]uperior [c]ourt . . . , but only in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the cause in which the receiver was appointed. [The court] can no more make orders to affect that cause, while sitting to hear another, between different parties, pending in the same county, than if it were a different court, or in session in a different county. These distinctions are not merely formal[; t]hey are essential to the administration of justice. An estate in the possession of a receiver must be administered in the presence of those who were parties to the appointment, or they would be denied their day in court. Links, 33 A. at 1004.

Considine does not claim that she sought leave from the court in the Affatato case to file this separate lawsuit against the receivers appointed in that case. And she cannot invoke Georgia’s limited statutory exception to the Barton doctrine.^[3] Instead, Considine contends that the 2008 Consent Order in the Affatato case gave her leave in advance to file separate lawsuits against the yet- to-be-named receivers, which she then exercised in 2010 and again in 2011 when she filed her lawsuits against Murphy and M&M.

Considine bases her argument on the provision of the Consent Order saying:

The Receiver shall not be liable to the parties hereto, for any losses, liabilities, expenses, claims, damages, or demands arising out of or in connection with said performance, except for gross negligence or willful misconduct, as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision, however, addresses the types of claims that Considine and Affatato might be able to bring against the receiver in the future; it does not authorize any claims to be brought in a lawsuit separate from the Affatato case and without leave given by the court in that case. Indeed, given Georgia’s longstanding rule, the only “Court of competent jurisdiction” to decide a separate lawsuit against the receivers would be a court hearing an action that a party in the Affatato case had asked for and received leave to file from the court in that case. Thus, the Consent Order did not give Considine leave to file a separate lawsuit against Murphy and M&M. And without prior leave being properly granted, the trial court had no jurisdiction over this separate lawsuit against the receivers. Accordingly, it was right for the trial court to dismiss this lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction, and right for the Court of Appeals to affirm the dismissal, and we affirm the judgment on this ground. See WMW, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 291 Ga. 683, 683 (733 SE2d 269) (2012) (affirming the Court of Appeals’ judgment on certiorari under the right-for-any- reason doctrine).

immunity,5 or by statutory immunity under the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA), OCGA §§ 50-21-20 to 50-21-37.6 Given our conclusion that this case authority). But see Coleman v. Dunlap, 695 F3d 650, 654 (7th Cir. 2012) (questioning Lewis and similar cases).

should be resolved based on Considine’s failure to comply with the prior leave requirement, however, we vacate Division 3 of the Court of Appeals’ opinion. See Oliver v. McDade, 297 Ga. ___ (__ SE2d __) (2015).

Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part. Thompson, C. J., Hines, P. J., Benham, Hunstein and Melton, JJ., and Judge Stephen D. Kelley concur. Blackwell, J., not participating.