Campisi v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] FCA 379

Campisi v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] FCA 379

Judgment was entered for each Respondent because the Applicant, after hearing the Respondents' submissions, accepted that the statement of claim was so deficient that there was no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding. The deficiencies included the absence of a matter and therefore jurisdiction, failure to identify any Commonwealth law or regulation of trade or commerce abridging relevant water-use rights, and the fact that the pleaded restrictions derived from Victorian legislation to which s 100 of the Constitution did not impinge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Law Proceeding / Respondents' Motions for Summary Dismissal Under S 31 A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)
Outcome
Judgment entered for each Respondent pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
Legal Topics
['section 100 of the Constitution' 'summary Dismissal' 'reasonable Prospect of Success' 'chapter III Matter' 'water Act 1989 (vic)']
['constitutional Law' 'federal Court Procedure' 'water Law'] ['section 100 of the Constitution' 'summary Dismissal' 'reasonable Prospect of Success' 'chapter III Matter' 'water Act 1989 (vic)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Law Proceeding / Respondents' Motions for Summary Dismissal Under S 31 A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant's proceeding gave rise to a matter within the meaning of Chapter III of the Constitution and s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)." 'Whether the Applicant had reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the proceeding.' 'Whether s 100 of the Constitution impugned restrictions or limitations imposed under the Water Act 1989 (Vic).' 'Whether the Applicant identified any Commonwealth law or regulation of trade or commerce that abridged rights to reasonable use of the waters of the Murray River for irrigation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Judgment was entered for each Respondent because the Applicant, after hearing the Respondents' submissions, accepted that the statement of claim was so deficient that there was no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding. The deficiencies included the absence of a matter and therefore jurisdiction, failure to identify any Commonwealth law or regulation of trade or commerce abridging relevant water-use rights, and the fact that the pleaded restrictions derived from Victorian legislation to which s 100 of the Constitution did not impinge.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for each Respondent pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Orders

  • ['Judgment be entered for each Respondent pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' "The Applicant pay each Respondent's costs of the proceeding including the costs of their respective strike-out motions." 'The name of the Third Respondent to the proceeding be amended to read "Lower...