Crosby v Kelly [2012] FCAFC 96

Crosby v Kelly [2012] FCAFC 96

The Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the substantive defamation proceeding because s 9(3) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), as a law made by the Commonwealth Parliament supported by s 122 and operating with ss 76(ii) and 77(i) of the Constitution, both conferred jurisdiction on the Federal Court and picked up as Commonwealth law the ACT Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The respondent's interlocutory application challenging jurisdiction was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding Raising Federal Court Jurisdiction and Constitutional Cross Vesting Issues / Full Court Determination of the Respondent's Interlocutory Application Objecting to the Competency of the Originating Application and Challenging Jurisdiction, Reserved Under S 25(6) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)
Outcome
Respondent's interlocutory application dismissed with costs; proceedings to be listed before the docket judge.
Legal Topics
['jurisdiction of the Federal Court' 'jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987 (cth) S 9(3)' 'constitution Ss 76(ii), 77(i) and 122' 'act Matters' 'territory Laws' 'surrogate Commonwealth Law']
['constitutional Law' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'cross Vesting of Jurisdiction' 'defamation'] ['jurisdiction of the Federal Court' 'jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987 (cth) S 9(3)' 'constitution Ss 76(ii), 77(i) and 122' 'act Matters' 'territory Laws' 'surrogate Commonwealth Law']

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

Defamation Proceeding Raising Federal Court Jurisdiction and Constitutional Cross Vesting Issues / Full Court Determination of the Respondent's Interlocutory Application Objecting to the Competency of the Originating Application and Challenging Jurisdiction, Reserved Under S 25(6) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 9(3) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) validly confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court of Australia in the substantive ACT defamation proceeding.' 'Whether s 9(3) is a law defining the jurisdiction of the Federal Court within s 77(i) of the Constitution with respect to a matter arising under a law made by the Parliament within s 76(ii).' 'Whether s 9(3) only facilitates transferred proceedings or also permits original proceedings in the Federal Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the substantive defamation proceeding because s 9(3) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), as a law made by the Commonwealth Parliament supported by s 122 and operating with ss 76(ii) and 77(i) of the Constitution, both conferred jurisdiction on the Federal Court and picked up as Commonwealth law the ACT Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The respondent's interlocutory application challenging jurisdiction was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondent's interlocutory application dismissed with costs; proceedings to be listed before the docket judge.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's interlocutory application dated 22 December 2011 be dismissed." "The respondent pay the applicants' costs of the interlocutory application, which may be taxed immediately." 'The proceedings be listed before the docket judge on a date to be notified.']