Mulley v Hayes

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: Federal Court (Australia)
• Judgment Date: 13 September 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] FCA 1111
• Date: 13 September 2021

Federal Court of Australia

Mulley v Hayes [2021] FCA 1111

File number:	NSD 78 of 2021
Judgment of:	LEE J
Date of judgment:	13 September 2021
Catchwords:	HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – federal jurisdiction – defamation proceeding – width of principle in LNC Industries v BMW (Australia) Ltd (1983) 151 CLR 575 – the interpretation or application of an aspect of a Commonwealth law need not be in dispute for federal jurisdiction to exist – consideration of relevant principles – scope of the federal matter – whether assertion of jurisdiction is colourable – held jurisdiction of the Court properly invoked ; DEFAMATION – jurisdiction of the Federal Court in defamation matters ; TORTS – claim relating to the loss conjugal rights and loss of consortium not maintainable – novel action on the case existing independently of trespass, negligence and nuisance for damages by a person who suffers harm or loss as the inevitable consequence of the unlawful, intentional and positive acts of another held to be arguable – allegation of unlawfulness contrary to s 474.17 of the Criminal Code (Cth)
Legislation:	Constitution Ch III; ss 75, 76, 77 Australia Act 1986 (Cth) Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Ch 2B; s 124 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 474.17 Customs Act 1901 (Cth) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 114 Family Law Amendment (Family Violence And Other Measures) Act 2018 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 32, 33(4B), 37P Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 4.12, 7.23, 30.01 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 39(2)(a), 39B(1A)(c), 64 Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) s 57 International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) s 7 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Law Reform (Marital Consortium) Act 1984 (NSW) s 3 Petroleum Act 1923 (Qld) Australia Act 1986 (UK)
Cases cited:	Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd v Hatfield [2005] HCA 38; (2005) 223 CLR 251 Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 7; (2013) 252 CLR 38 Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW) (1907) 4 CLR 1087 Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith (1966) 120 CLR 145 Buckee v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCA 242; (2014) 220 FCR 541 Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 18 FCR 212 Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15; (2018) 265 CLR 304 CGU Insurance Ltd v Blakeley [2016] HCA 2; (2016) 259 CLR 339 Clarence City Council v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCAFC 134; (2020) 280 FCR 265 Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia Limited v Ferrcom Pty Limited (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56; (2002) 210 CLR 575 Edwards v Santos Ltd [2011] HCA 8; (2011) 242 CLR 421 Hafertepen v Network Ten Pty Limited [2020] FCA 1456 Hunt Australia Pty Ltd v Davidson’s Arnhemland Safaris Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1690; (2000) 179 ALR 738 Kitano v Commonwealth (1974) 129 CLR 151 Kowalski v MMAL Staff Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1069; (2007) 242 ALR 370 LNC Industries v BMW (Australia) Ltd (1983) 151 CLR 575 Macteldir Pty Ltd v Dimovski [2005] FCA 1528 McCully v Sydney Trains [2021] FCA 562 Mercator Property Consultants Pty Ltd v Christmas Island Resort Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1572; (1999) 94 FCR 384 Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (1980) 145 CLR 457 News Limited v Australian Rugby Football League Limited (1996) 64 FCR 410 Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307 Oliver v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 583 Page v Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 537; (2020) 277 FCR 658 PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore PTE Ltd [2015] HCA 36; (2015) 258 CLR 1 Qantas Airways Limited v Lustig [2015] FCA 253; (2015) 228 FCR 148 R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Barrett (1945) 70 CLR 141 Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCAFC 156; (2017) 254 FCR 1 Rizeq v Western Australia [2017] HCA 23; (2017) 262 CLR 1 RNB Equities Pty Ltd v Credit Suisse Investment Services (Australia) Limited [2019] FCA 760; (2019) 370 ALR 88 Sagacious Legal Pty Ltd v Wesfarmers General Insurance Ltd (No 4) [2010] FCA 482; (2010) 268 ALR 108 Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2010] FCA 1323 Scott v Secretary, Department of Social Security [2000] FCA 1241; (2000) 65 ALD 79 Seven Network v Cricket Australia [2021] FCA 1031 Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd v Page [2021] NSWCA 204 TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Judges of the Federal Court of Australia [2013] HCA 5; (2013) 251 CLR 533 Tucker v McKee [2021] FCA 828 Webb v Outtrim (1906) 4 CLR 356
	Australian Law Reform Commission, The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth: A Review of the Judiciary Act and related legislation (DP 64, December 2000) Cardozo B N, The Nature of the Judicial Process (Yale University Press, 1921) Explanatory Memorandum, Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2018 Kiralfy A K, The Action on the Case (Sweet & Maxwell, 1951) Leeming M, Authority to Decide: The Law of Jurisdiction in Australia (2nd ed, Federation Press, 2020) Royal Commission on the Constitution of the Commonwealth (Minutes of Evidence, 13 December 1927) Zines L, Cowen and Zines’s Federal Jurisdiction in Australia (4th ed, Federation Press, 2016)
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs:	79
Dates of hearing:	15 June 2021 and 16 August 2021
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr G O’L Reynolds SC with Mr D Farinha
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Gorval Lynch
Amici Curiae:	Mr W A D Edwards with Mr J Mack

ORDERS

		NSD 78 of 2021
BETWEEN:	ROBERT GORDON MULLEY Applicant
AND:	WARREN HAYES Respondent

order made by:	LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 September 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The separate question identified by Order 1 of the orders made on 16 March 2021 be answered as follows:

Yes, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia has been properly invoked.

2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the hearing of the separate question.

3. The proceeding be listed for a case management hearing at 2.15pm on 23 September 2021.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LEE J:

A INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND

1. This matter raises novel issues as to the metes and bounds of this Court’s jurisdiction. I have previously had occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the Court in what is sometimes described as a “pure” defamation matter; but, for reasons that will become evident, the present proceeding cannot be accurately...