Mulley v Hayes [2021] FCA 1111

Parties

Procedural Posture

Defamation and Tort Proceeding / Determination of Separate Question Regarding Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the applicant's claims, including defamation and a tort claim for harm resulting from alleged unlawful acts contrary to s 474.17 of the Criminal Code (Cth)
2. 2 Whether the applicant's action on the case for harm resulting from unlawful acts constitutes a 'matter arising under' a law of the Parliament for the purposes of s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
3. 3 Whether the applicant's claim is colourable or was advanced for the improper purpose of fabricating jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the applicant's claim, particularly the action on the case for harm caused by alleged unlawful acts contrary to s 474.17 of the Criminal Code (Cth), constituted a matter arising under a law of the Parliament. Thus, the Federal Court's jurisdiction was properly invoked. The existence or merits of the federal claim are not determinative to the question of jurisdiction, provided the claim was made genuinely and not to fabricate jurisdiction. The respondent's submissions that the claim was colourable or required a prior criminal conviction were rejected.

Court Disposition

The jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia has been properly invoked.

Orders

• The separate question identified by Order 1 of the orders made on 16 March 2021 is answered as follows: Yes, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia has been properly invoked.
• The respondent pay the applicant's costs of the hearing of the separate question.