{"id":"C2004A03433","name":"Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987","slug":"jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"24 of 1987","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":7578,"registerId":"commonwealth-C2004A03433-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-03-30","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Short title","content":"#### 1 Short title\n\n  This Act may be cited as the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross‑vesting) Act 1987.","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commencement","content":"#### 2 Commencement\n\n  This Act shall come into operation on a day to be fixed by Proclamation.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Interpretation and application","content":"#### 3 Interpretation and application\n\n  (1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:\n\n> Federal Court means the Federal Court of Australia.\n\n> Full Court, in relation to a Supreme Court of a State, includes any court of the State to which appeals lie from a single judge of that Supreme Court.\n\n> judgment means a judgment, decree or order, whether final or interlocutory.\n\n> party, in relation to a proceeding, includes a person who intervenes in the proceeding.\n\n> proceeding does not include a criminal proceeding.\n\n> special federal matter means:\n\n    (a) a matter arising under Part IV of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (other than under section 45D, 45DA, 45DB, 45E or 45EA); or\n    (aa) a matter arising under the Competition Code (as defined in section 150A of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010) of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; or\n    (ab) a matter arising under section 60G of the Family Law Act 1975 in a court other than the Family Court of Western Australia or the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory; or\n    (b) a matter involving the determination of questions of law on appeal from a decision of, or of questions of law referred or stated by, a tribunal or other body established by an Act or a person holding office under an Act, not being a matter for determination in an appeal or a reference or case stated to the Supreme Court of a State or Territory under a law of the Commonwealth that specifically provides for such an appeal, reference or case stated to such a court; or\n    (c) a matter arising under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977; or\n    (e) a matter that is within the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court by virtue of section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903;\n  being a matter in respect of which the Supreme Court of a State or Territory would not, apart from this Act, have jurisdiction.\n\n> State includes the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.\n\n> State Family Court, in relation to a State, means a court of that State to which section 41 of the Family Law Act 1975 applies by virtue of a Proclamation made under subsection 41(2) of that Act.\n\n> Territory does not include the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory.\n\n  (2) A reference in this Act, other than a reference in subsection 4(1), 5(3) or 7(4), to the Supreme Court of a State includes, if there is a State Family Court of that State, a reference to that State Family Court.\n  (3) This Act extends to every external Territory.\n  (4) Jurisdiction conferred on the Federal Court by an application law (as defined in section 150A of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010), of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory, is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as if that jurisdiction were federal jurisdiction.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"section","heading":"Additional jurisdiction of certain courts","content":"#### 4 Additional jurisdiction of certain courts\n\n  (1) Where:\n    (a) the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) has jurisdiction with respect to a civil matter, whether that jurisdiction was or is conferred before or after the commencement of this Act; and\n    (b) the Supreme Court of a State or Territory would not, apart from this section, have jurisdiction with respect to that matter;\n  then:\n    (c) in the case of the Supreme Court of a State (other than the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory)—that court is invested with federal jurisdiction with respect to that matter; or\n    (d) in the case of the Supreme Court of a Territory (including the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory)—jurisdiction is conferred on that court with respect to that matter.\n  (2) Where:\n    (a) the Supreme Court of a Territory has jurisdiction with respect to a civil matter, whether that jurisdiction was or is conferred before or after the commencement of this Act; and\n    (b) the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) or the Supreme Court of a State or of another Territory would not, apart from this section, have jurisdiction with respect to that matter;\n  jurisdiction is conferred on the court referred to in paragraph (b) with respect to that matter.\n  (3) Where a proceeding is transferred to the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) or a State Family Court of a State, that court has, by virtue of this subsection, jurisdiction with respect to so many of the matters for determination in the proceeding as that court would not have apart from this subsection.\n  (4) This section does not apply to a matter arising under:\n    (a) the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904; or\n    (ab) the Fair Work Act 2009; or\n    (aba) the Federal Safety Commissioner Act 2022; or\n    (ac) the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009; or\n    (ad) the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009; or\n    (b) the Workplace Relations Act 1996; or\n    (ba) the Native Title Act 1993; or\n    (c) section 45D, 45DA, 45DB, 45E, 45EA,46A, 155A or 155B of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010; or\n    (d) a provision of Part VI or XII of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 so far as the provision relates to section 46A, 155A or 155B of that Act.","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Transfer of proceedings","content":"#### 5 Transfer of proceedings\n\n  (1) Where:\n    (a) a proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the relevant proceeding) is pending in the Supreme Court of a State or Territory (in this subsection referred to as the first court); and\n    (b) it appears to the first court that:\n    (i) the relevant proceeding arises out of, or is related to, another proceeding pending in the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) and it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1);\n    (ii) having regard to:\n    (A) whether, in the opinion of the first court, apart from this Act and any law of a State relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction and apart from any accrued jurisdiction of the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), the relevant proceeding or a substantial part of the relevant proceeding would have been incapable of being instituted in the first court and capable of being instituted in the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1);\n    (B) the extent to which, in the opinion of the first court, the matters for determination in the relevant proceeding are matters arising under or involving questions as to the application, interpretation or validity of a law of the Commonwealth and not within the jurisdiction of the first court apart from this Act and any law of a State relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction; and\n    (C) the interests of justice;\n    it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), as the case may be; or\n    (iii) it is otherwise in the interests of justice that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1);\n  the first court shall transfer the relevant proceeding to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), as the case may be.\n  (2) Where:\n    (a) a proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the relevant proceeding) is pending in the Supreme Court of a State or Territory (in this subsection referred to as the first court); and\n    (b) it appears to the first court that:\n    (i) the relevant proceeding arises out of, or is related to, another proceeding pending in the Supreme Court of another State or Territory and it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by that other Supreme Court;\n    (ii) having regard to:\n    (A) whether, in the opinion of the first court, apart from this Act and any law of a State relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction, the relevant proceeding or a substantial part of the relevant proceeding would have been incapable of being instituted in the first court and capable of being instituted in the Supreme Court of another State or Territory;\n    (B) the extent to which, in the opinion of the first court, the matters for determination in the relevant proceeding are matters arising under or involving questions as to the application, interpretation or validity of a law of the State or Territory referred to in sub‑subparagraph (A) and not within the jurisdiction of the first court apart from this Act and any law of a State relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction; and\n    (C) the interests of justice;\n    it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by that other Supreme Court; or\n    (iii) it is otherwise in the interests of justice that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Supreme Court of another State or Territory;\n  the first court shall transfer the relevant proceeding to that other Supreme Court.\n  (3) Where:\n    (a) a proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the relevant proceeding) is pending in the Supreme Court of a State or the State Family Court of that State (in this subsection referred to as the first court); and\n    (b) it appears to the first court that:\n    (i) the relevant proceeding arises out of, or is related to, another proceeding pending in the other of the courts referred to in paragraph (a) and it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by that other court;\n    (ii) having regard to:\n    (A) whether, in the opinion of the first court, apart from this Act and any law of a State relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction, the relevant proceeding or a substantial part of the relevant proceeding would have been incapable of being instituted in the first court and capable of being instituted in the other of the courts referred to in paragraph (a); and\n    (B) the interests of justice;\n    it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by the other of the courts referred to in paragraph (a); or\n    (iii) it is otherwise in the interests of justice that the relevant proceeding be determined by the other of the courts referred to in paragraph (a);\n  the first court shall transfer the relevant proceeding to that other court.\n  (4) Where:\n    (a) a proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the relevant proceeding) is pending in the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) (in this subsection referred to as the first court); and\n    (b) it appears to the first court that:\n    (i) the relevant proceeding arises out of, or is related to, another proceeding pending in the Supreme Court of a State or Territory and it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by that Supreme Court;\n    (ii) having regard to:\n    (A) whether, in the opinion of the first court, the relevant proceeding or a substantial part of it would have been incapable of being instituted in that court, apart from this Act and any law of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction; and\n    (B) whether, in the opinion of the first court, the relevant proceeding or a substantial part of it would have been capable of being instituted in the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, apart from this Act and any law of a State or Territory relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction; and\n    (C) the extent to which, in the opinion of the first court, the matters for determination in the relevant proceeding are matters arising under or involving questions as to the application, interpretation or validity of a law of the State or Territory referred to in sub‑subparagraph (B) and not within the jurisdiction of the first court apart from this Act and any law of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction; and\n    (D) the interests of justice;\n    it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by that Supreme Court; or\n    (iii) it is otherwise in the interests of justice that the relevant proceeding be determined by the Supreme Court of a State or Territory;\n  the first court shall transfer the relevant proceeding to that Supreme Court.\n  (5) Where:\n    (a) a proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the relevant proceeding) is pending in the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) (in this subsection referred to as the first court); and\n    (b) it appears to the first court that:\n    (i) the relevant proceeding arises out of, or is related to, another proceeding pending in the other of the courts referred to in paragraph (a) and it is more appropriate that the relevant proceeding be determined by the other of the courts referred to in paragraph (a); or\n    (ii) it is otherwise in the interests of justice that the relevant proceeding be determined by the other of the courts referred to in paragraph (a);\n  the first court shall transfer the relevant proceeding to that other court.\n  (6) Where:\n    (a) a court (in this subsection referred to as the first court) transfers a proceeding to another court under a law or laws relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction; and\n    (b) it appears to the first court that:\n    (i) there is another proceeding pending in the first court that arises out of, or is related to, the first‑mentioned proceeding; and\n    (ii) it is in the interests of justice that the other proceeding be determined by the other court;\n  the first court shall transfer the other proceeding to the other court.\n  (7) A court may transfer a proceeding under this section on the application of a party to the proceeding, of its own motion or on the application of the Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.\n  (8) A person who is entitled to practise as a barrister or a solicitor, or as both a barrister and a solicitor, in a court has, if a proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the transferred proceeding) in that court is transferred to another court under a law or laws relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction, the same entitlement to practise in relation to:\n    (a) the transferred proceeding; and\n    (b) any other proceeding out of which the transferred proceeding arises or to which the transferred proceeding is related, being another proceeding that is to be determined together with the transferred proceeding;\n  in the other court that the person would have if the other court were a federal court exercising federal jurisdiction.\n  (9) Nothing in this section confers on a court jurisdiction that the court would not otherwise have.\n\n> Note: This section has effect subject to section 6 (Special federal matters: general rules) and section 6A (Special federal matters: Commonwealth authorities or officers acting under the laws of States).","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"6","sectionType":"section","heading":"Special federal matters: general rules","content":"#### 6 Special federal matters: general rules\n\n  (1) If:\n    (a) a matter for determination in a proceeding that is pending in the Supreme Court of a State or Territory is a special federal matter; and\n    (b) the court does not make an order under subsection (3) in respect of the matter;\n  the court must transfer the proceeding in accordance with this section to the Federal Court or a court mentioned in paragraph (2)(b).\n\n> Note: This section has effect subject to section 6A (Special federal matters: Commonwealth authorities or officers acting under the laws of States).\n\n  (1A) However, the court must only transfer so much of the proceeding as is, in the opinion of the court, within the jurisdiction (including the accrued jurisdiction) of the Federal Court, or the court mentioned in paragraph (2)(b), as the case may be.\n  (2) If the court orders that a proceeding or part of a proceeding be transferred, the proceeding or part of the proceeding must be transferred:\n    (a) if the matter for determination in the proceeding is a matter mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e) of the definition of special federal matter in subsection 3(1)—to the Federal Court; or\n    (b) if the matter for determination in the proceeding is a matter mentioned in paragraph (ab) of that definition—to whichever of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), the Family Court of Western Australia or the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, in the opinion of the court, is appropriate in the circumstances.\n  (3) The Supreme Court may order that the proceeding be determined by that court if it is satisfied that there are special reasons for doing so in the particular circumstances of the proceeding other than reasons relevant to the convenience of the parties.\n  (4) Before making an order under subsection (3), the court must be satisfied that:\n    (a) a written notice specifying the nature of the special federal matter has been given to the Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth and the Attorney‑General of the State or Territory where the proceeding is pending; and\n    (b) a reasonable time has elapsed since the giving of the notice for the Attorneys‑General to consider whether submissions to the court should be made in relation to the proceeding.\n  (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the court:\n    (a) may adjourn the proceeding for such time as the court thinks necessary and may make such order as to costs in relation to an adjournment as it thinks fit; and\n    (b) may direct a party to the proceeding to give a notice in accordance with that subsection.\n  (6) In considering whether there are special reasons for the purposes of subsection (3), the court must:\n    (a) have regard to the general rule that special federal matters should be heard by the Federal Court or a court mentioned in paragraph (2)(b), whichever is appropriate in the particular case; and\n    (b) take into account any submission made in relation to the proceeding by an Attorney‑General mentioned in subsection (4).\n  (7) The Attorney‑General may authorise the payment by the Commonwealth to a party of an amount in respect of costs arising out of the adjournment of a proceeding under this section, under a corresponding provision of a law of a State or under this section and under such a provision.\n  (8) Nothing in this section prevents the court granting urgent relief of an interlocutory nature if it is in the interests of justice to do so.\n  (9) Where, through inadvertence, the Supreme Court of a State or Territory determines a proceeding of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) without:\n    (a) the court making an order under subsection (3) that the proceeding be determined by that court; or\n    (b) a notice mentioned in subsection (4) being given;\n  nothing in this section invalidates the decision of that court.\n  (10) This section does not apply to an appeal that is instituted in the Full Court of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory if the court whose decision is the subject of the appeal had made an order under subsection (3), or under subsection 6(1) as in force before the commencement of the amendments of this Act made by the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act (No. 3) 1992, in relation to the special federal matter.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"6A","sectionType":"section","heading":"Special federal matters: Commonwealth authorities or officers acting under the laws of States","content":"#### 6A Special federal matters: Commonwealth authorities or officers acting under the laws of States\n\n  (1) This section applies to a proceeding (the federal matter proceeding) if:\n    (a) a matter for determination in the proceeding is covered by paragraph (c) or (e) of the definition of special federal matter in subsection 3(1); and\n    (b) the matter for determination in the proceeding involves or relates to the exercise, or purported or proposed exercise, of functions or powers conferred on a Commonwealth authority, or officer of the Commonwealth, by an enactment (the State enactment) referred to in paragraph (ca) or (cb) of the definition of enactment in subsection 3(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977; and\n    (c) the matter for determination in the proceeding arises out of, or relates to, another proceeding (the State matter proceeding) pending in any court of any State:\n    (i) that arises, or a substantial part of which arises, under the State enactment or a corresponding enactment of another State; and\n    (ii) none of the matters for determination in which are covered by paragraph (c) or (e) of the definition of special federal matter in subsection 3(1);\n    regardless of which proceeding was commenced first.\n\n> Note: Paragraph (c) of the definition of special federal matter in subsection 3(1) refers to matters arising under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, and paragraph (e) of that definition refers to matters that are within the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court by virtue of section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903.\n\n  (2) If:\n    (a) the federal matter proceeding is pending in the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1); and\n    (b) having regard to the interests of justice, including the desirability of related proceedings being heard in the same jurisdiction, the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) considers it appropriate to transfer the proceeding to the Supreme Court of the State in which the State matter proceeding is pending;\n  the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) may transfer the proceeding to that Supreme Court. Subsection 5(4) does not apply to the federal matter proceeding.\n  (3) If:\n    (a) the federal matter proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court of a State; and\n    (b) the State matter proceeding is pending in any court of that State;\n  neither subsection 5(1) nor section 6 applies to require the Supreme Court to transfer the federal matter proceeding to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1). However, the Supreme Court may do so if it considers that to be appropriate, having regard to the interests of justice, including the desirability of related proceedings being heard in the same jurisdiction.\n  (4) Nothing in this section confers on a court jurisdiction that the court would not otherwise have.\n  (5) The fact that references in this section to the interests of justice include the desirability of related proceedings being heard in the same jurisdiction does not of itself mean that references to the interests of justice elsewhere in this Act do not include that matter.\n  (6) In this section:\n\n> Commonwealth authority means an authority or other body (whether incorporated or not) that is established or continued in existence by or under an Act.\n\n> officer of the Commonwealth has the same meaning as in paragraph 75(v) of the Constitution.","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"7","sectionType":"section","heading":"Institution and hearing of appeals","content":"#### 7 Institution and hearing of appeals\n\n  (1) An appeal shall not be instituted from a decision of a single judge of the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.\n  (2) An appeal shall not be instituted from the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) to the other of those courts.\n  (3) Where it appears that the only matters for determination in a proceeding by way of an appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory are matters other than matters arising under an Act specified in the Schedule, that proceeding shall be instituted only in, and shall be determined only by, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of that State or Territory.\n  (4) An appeal shall not be instituted from a decision of a court of summary jurisdiction of a State to the Supreme Court of the State if an appeal lies from that decision to the State Family Court of the State.\n  (5) Subject to subsections (7) and (8), where it appears that a matter for determination in a proceeding by way of an appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory (not being a proceeding to which subsection (6) applies) is a matter arising under an Act specified in the Schedule, that proceeding shall be instituted only in, and shall be determined only by:\n    (a) the Full Court of the Federal Court or of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), as the case requires; or\n    (b) with special leave of the High Court, the High Court.\n  (6) A proceeding by way of an appeal from a decision of a judge of a State Family Court, being a proceeding involving the determination of:\n    (a) a matter arising under an Act specified in the Schedule; and\n    (b) another matter;\n  may be dealt with as if no matter for determination in the proceeding were a matter arising under an Act specified in the Schedule.\n  (7) Where:\n    (a) the Full Court of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory commences to hear a proceeding by way of an appeal; and\n    (b) before the Court determines the proceeding, it appears to the Court that the proceeding is a proceeding to which subsection (5) applies;\n  the Court shall, unless the interests of justice require that the Court proceed to determine the proceeding, transfer the proceeding to the Full Court of the Federal Court or of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), as the case requires.\n  (8) Where the Full Court of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory:\n    (a) determines a proceeding to which subsection (5) applies as mentioned in subsection (7); or\n    (b) through inadvertence, determines a proceeding to which subsection (5) applies;\n  nothing in this section invalidates the decision of that court.","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"8","sectionType":"section","heading":"Orders by Supreme Court of a Territory","content":"#### 8 Orders by Supreme Court of a Territory\n\n  (1) Where:\n    (a) a proceeding (in this subsection referred to as the relevant proceeding) is pending in:\n    (i) a court, other than the Supreme Court, of a Territory; or\n    (ii) a tribunal established by or under a law of a Territory; and\n    (b) it appears to the Supreme Court of that Territory that:\n    (i) the relevant proceeding arises out of, or is related to, another proceeding pending in the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), the Supreme Court of a State or the Supreme Court of another Territory and, if an order is made under this subsection in relation to the relevant proceeding, there would be grounds on which that other proceeding could be transferred to the Supreme Court of that first‑mentioned Territory; or\n    (ii) an order should be made under this subsection in relation to the relevant proceeding so that consideration can be given to whether the relevant proceeding should be transferred to another court;\n  the Supreme Court of that first‑mentioned Territory may, on the application of a party to the relevant proceeding or of its own motion, make an order removing the relevant proceeding to that Supreme Court.\n  (2) Where an order is made under subsection (1) in relation to a proceeding, this Act applies in relation to the proceeding as if it were a proceeding pending in the court to which it was removed.\n  (3) Where a proceeding is removed to a court in accordance with an order made under subsection (1), that court may, if the court considers it appropriate to do so, remit the proceeding to the court or tribunal from which the proceeding was removed.","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"9","sectionType":"section","heading":"Exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to cross‑vesting laws","content":"#### 9 Exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to cross‑vesting laws\n\n  (1) Nothing in this or any other Act is intended to override or limit the operation of a provision of a law of a State relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction.\n  (2) The Supreme Court of a Territory may:\n    (a) exercise jurisdiction (whether original or appellate) conferred on that court by a provision of this Act or of a law of a State relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction; and\n    (b) hear and determine a proceeding transferred to that court under such a provision.\n  (3) The Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) may:\n    (a) exercise jurisdiction (whether original or appellate) conferred on that court by a provision of this Act or of a law of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction; and\n    (b) hear and determine a proceeding transferred to that court under such a provision.","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"10","sectionType":"section","heading":"Transfer of matters arising under the Australian Consumer Law","content":"#### 10 Transfer of matters arising under the Australian Consumer Law\n\n  Where:\n    (a) a proceeding is pending in the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory;\n    (b) a matter for determination in the proceeding is a matter arising under Part 2‑2, 3‑1, 3‑3 or 3‑4 of Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, as that Part applies as a law of the Commonwealth;\n    (c) no matter for determination in the proceeding is a special federal matter;\n    (d) the proceeding is not a proceeding by way of an appeal from a judgment of a court; and\n    (e) a court of a State or Territory, other than the Supreme Court of that State or Territory, has jurisdiction with respect to all of the matters for determination in the proceeding;\n  the court referred to in paragraph (a) may, on the application of a party to the proceeding or of its own motion, transfer the proceeding to the court referred to in paragraph (e).","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"11","sectionType":"section","heading":"Conduct of proceedings","content":"#### 11 Conduct of proceedings\n\n  (1) Where it appears to a court that the court will, or will be likely to, in determining a matter for determination in a proceeding, be exercising jurisdiction conferred by this Act or by a law of a State relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction:\n    (a) subject to paragraphs (b) and (c), the court shall, in determining that matter, apply the law in force in the State or Territory in which the court is sitting (including choice of law rules);\n    (b) subject to paragraph (c), if that matter is a right of action arising under a written law of another State or Territory, the court shall, in determining that matter, apply the written and unwritten law of that other State or Territory; and\n    (c) the rules of evidence and procedure to be applied in dealing with that matter shall be such as the court considers appropriate in the circumstances, being rules that are applied in a superior court in Australia or in an external Territory.\n  (2) The reference in paragraph (1)(a) to the State or Territory in which the court is sitting is, in relation to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), a reference to the State or Territory in which any matter for determination in the proceeding was first commenced in or transferred to that court.\n  (3) Where a proceeding is transferred or removed to a court (in this subsection referred to as the transferee court) from another court (in this subsection referred to as the transferor court), the transferee court shall deal with the proceeding as if, subject to any order of the transferee court, the steps that had been taken for the purposes of the proceeding in the transferor court (including the making of an order), or similar steps, had been taken in the transferee court.","sortOrder":11},{"sectionNumber":"12","sectionType":"section","heading":"Orders as to costs","content":"#### 12 Orders as to costs\n\n  Where a proceeding is transferred or removed to a court, that court may make an order as to costs that relate to the conduct of the proceeding before the transfer or removal if those costs have not already been dealt with by another court.","sortOrder":12},{"sectionNumber":"13","sectionType":"section","heading":"Limitation on appeals","content":"#### 13 Limitation on appeals\n\n  An appeal does not lie from a decision of a court:\n    (a) in relation to the transfer or removal of a proceeding under this Act; or\n    (b) as to which rules of evidence and procedure are to be applied pursuant to subsection 11(1).","sortOrder":13},{"sectionNumber":"14","sectionType":"section","heading":"Enforcement and effect of judgments","content":"#### 14 Enforcement and effect of judgments\n\n  (1) A judgment of the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) that is given, in whole or in part, in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by a law or laws relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction is enforceable in a Territory as if the judgment had been given entirely in the exercise of the jurisdiction of that court apart from any such law.\n  (2) A judgment of the Supreme Court of a Territory that is given, in whole or in part, in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by a law or laws relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction is enforceable in that Territory as if the judgment had been given entirely in the exercise of the jurisdiction of that court apart from any such law.\n  (3) Where:\n    (a) a provision of a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory (not being a law relating to the enforcement of judgments) refers to a thing done by the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) or the Supreme Court of that Territory; and\n    (b) that thing is done by another court in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by this Act;\n  the reference in that provision to the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) or the Supreme Court of that Territory, as the case may be, shall be read as a reference to that other court.","sortOrder":14},{"sectionNumber":"15","sectionType":"section","heading":"Construction of Act to be subject to Constitution","content":"#### 15 Construction of Act to be subject to Constitution\n\n  This Act shall be read and construed subject to the Constitution, and so as not to exceed the legislative power of the Commonwealth, to the intent that if this Act would, but for this section, have been construed as being in excess of that power, it shall nevertheless be valid to the extent to which it is not in excess of that power.","sortOrder":15},{"sectionNumber":"16","sectionType":"section","heading":"Suspension or cessation of operation of Act","content":"#### 16 Suspension or cessation of operation of Act\n\n  (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor‑General may, if a Proclamation has not been made under subsection (4), by Proclamation, declare that the operation of this Act is suspended from a day (being a day not earlier than 3 years after the commencement of this Act) specified in the Proclamation and, where such a Proclamation is made, this Act ceases to be in force from that day until a Proclamation is made under subsection (3) revoking the first‑mentioned Proclamation.\n  (2) The Governor‑General shall not make a Proclamation under subsection (1) having effect from a particular day unless the Governor‑General is satisfied that the Attorney‑General has given notice of his or her intention to seek the making of such a Proclamation to each State (other than a State in relation to which a Proclamation under subsection (5) has been made) not less than 6 months before that day.\n  (3) Where the Governor‑General has made a Proclamation under subsection (1), the Governor‑General may, by Proclamation, revoke the first‑mentioned Proclamation.\n  (4) Where the Governor‑General is satisfied that State Acts relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction are not effective to confer jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts of the States on the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), the Governor‑General may, by Proclamation, declare that this Act shall, on a day specified in the Proclamation, cease to be in force and, where such a Proclamation is made, this Act ceases to be in force on that day.\n  (5) Where the Governor‑General is satisfied that an Act of a particular State relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction has been repealed, rendered inoperative, suspended or altered in a substantial manner, the Governor‑General may, by Proclamation, declare that this Act shall, on a day specified in the Proclamation, cease to be in force in relation to that State and, where such a Proclamation is made, this Act ceases to be in force in relation to that State on that day.\n  (6) Where:\n    (a) the Governor‑General has made a Proclamation under subsection (5) in relation to a State; and\n    (b) the Governor‑General is satisfied that there is in force an Act of that State relating to cross‑vesting of jurisdiction, being an Act in terms substantially corresponding to the terms of this Act;\n  the Governor‑General may, by Proclamation, declare that this Act again applies in relation to that State from a day specified in the Proclamation and, where such a Proclamation is made, this Act applies in relation to that State on and after that day.","sortOrder":16}],"analysis":{"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[{"type":"self_contradicting","section":"3(1) - definition of 'State' and 'Territory'","severity":"high","reasoning":"The conventional constitutional understanding is that ACT and NT are Territories, not States. The Act deliberately redefines 'State' to swallow the Territories it most commonly deals with, then carves them back out of the 'Territory' definition. While this may be a deliberate drafting choice to achieve certain operative effects, it creates persistent interpretive absurdity: references to 'Supreme Court of a State or Territory' in operative provisions must be read against contradictory definitional foundations, and a reader cannot determine without deep cross-referencing whether any given provision treats ACT/NT as States, Territories, or both.","confidence":0.82,"description":"The Act defines 'State' to include the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, but simultaneously defines 'Territory' to exclude the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. This creates a situation where the ACT and NT are States but not Territories for the purposes of this Act, inverting ordinary constitutional and legal understanding."},{"type":"self_contradicting","section":"5(9)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"Section 4 is the primary jurisdiction-conferring provision, and section 5 is the transfer mechanism. Section 5(9) clarifies that section 5 does not independently confer jurisdiction. However, section 4(3) separately confers jurisdiction upon courts that receive transferred proceedings. A court could thus receive a transferred proceeding under section 5, rely on section 4(3) for jurisdiction, and section 5(9) would be consistent. But the note appended to section 5 states the section is subject to sections 6 and 6A, creating a layered regime where the disclaimer in subsection (9) is easily misread as defeating the transfer mechanism rather than merely clarifying the source of jurisdiction.","confidence":0.65,"description":"Section 5(9) provides that nothing in section 5 confers jurisdiction that the court would not otherwise have, yet the entire purpose of section 5 is to facilitate transfers of proceedings between courts. If a court lacks jurisdiction over a transferred matter, section 5(9) would appear to undermine the utility of the transfer mechanism established by the same section."},{"type":"other","section":"6(9)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"The section imposes a mandatory duty ('the court must transfer') yet immunises from invalidity any judgment made in breach of that duty if the breach was inadvertent. There is no mechanism to distinguish deliberate from inadvertent non-compliance after the fact, and no definition of 'inadvertence'. This means the mandatory nature of the transfer obligation is practically unenforceable, as any non-compliant court could characterise its failure as inadvertent. The same structure appears in section 7(8), compounding the issue.","confidence":0.85,"description":"Section 6(9) provides that where a Supreme Court inadvertently determines a special federal matter proceeding without following the mandatory transfer or order procedure, nothing in the section invalidates the decision. This rewards non-compliance with a mandatory obligation ('must transfer') and creates a perverse incentive: deliberate non-compliance is a breach, but inadvertent non-compliance produces a valid judgment."},{"type":"impossible_compliance","section":"7(3) and 7(5)","severity":"high","reasoning":"Section 7(3) uses the qualifier 'only matters... other than matters arising under an Act specified in the Schedule', and section 7(5) applies where 'a matter for determination... is a matter arising under an Act specified in the Schedule'. These are exhaustive and mutually exclusive conditions. Section 7(6) provides a solution only for State Family Court proceedings. For an ordinary Supreme Court single-judge appeal involving both Schedule and non-Schedule matters, neither subsection (3) nor subsection (5) applies neatly, and there is no residual provision. Section 7(7) only applies once the Full Court of the Supreme Court has commenced hearing, and it mandates transfer to the Federal Full Court if subsection (5) applies — but the triggering condition for (5) requires the matter to be purely a Schedule matter by implication of (3)/(5) interaction. A court faced with a genuinely mixed appeal has no clear statutory direction.","confidence":0.75,"description":"Section 7(3) mandates that an appeal involving only non-Schedule matters must be heard exclusively by the Full Court of the relevant Supreme Court. Section 7(5) mandates that an appeal involving any Schedule matter must be heard exclusively by the Full Court of the Federal Court or Federal Circuit and Family Court. There is no provision addressing an appeal involving both Schedule and non-Schedule matters outside the State Family Court context (which is dealt with in section 7(6)). A mixed appeal from an ordinary Supreme Court judge falls into a legislative gap with two mutually exclusive mandatory directions."},{"type":"other","section":"13","severity":"medium","reasoning":"The appeal bar in section 13 is absolute in its terms. Combined with the 'inadvertence' savings provision in section 6(9), a Supreme Court can retain a special federal matter either through a potentially flawed 'special reasons' order (no appeal) or through inadvertence (decision valid). Both pathways to improper retention of federal jurisdiction are immunised from correction. This creates a regime where the mandatory referral rule for special federal matters is effectively unenforceable by parties.","confidence":0.78,"description":"Section 13 removes the right of appeal from decisions about transfer or removal of proceedings and about choice of evidence and procedure rules. However, section 6(3) allows the Supreme Court to retain a special federal matter proceeding for 'special reasons', and section 6(4) requires notification to Attorneys-General before doing so. There is no appeal from an incorrect 'special reasons' determination, potentially leaving parties with no remedy if a Supreme Court improperly retains jurisdiction over a federal matter."},{"type":"self_contradicting","section":"16(1) and 16(4)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"It is logically inverted that a temporary suspension (subsection 1) requires a 3-year waiting period from commencement and 6 months' notice to States, while a permanent cessation (subsection 4) has no waiting period and no notice requirement. The drafters appear to have considered the suspension power (exercisable at Commonwealth initiative alone) as requiring more protection for the States than the cessation power (exercisable when State cross-vesting laws fail), but the operative text creates an anomaly where the Act can be killed faster and with less warning than it can be put to sleep.","confidence":0.8,"description":"Section 16(1) allows the Governor-General to suspend the Act from a day not earlier than 3 years after commencement, subject to 6 months' notice. Section 16(4) allows the Governor-General to declare the Act shall cease to be in force on a specified day with no minimum period, no notice requirement, and no time restriction. The more drastic remedy (permanent cessation) has fewer procedural safeguards than the lesser remedy (suspension)."},{"type":"self_contradicting","section":"6A(4) and 4(1)/(2)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"The interaction between section 6A(3)'s permissive retention and section 6A(4)'s non-conferral disclaimer creates a potential void: the Supreme Court may 'retain' a proceeding it was otherwise required to transfer under section 5(1) or section 6, but if the subject matter falls outside section 4's conferral of jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, retention is jurisdictionally invalid even though section 6A(3) appears to authorise it. The drafting leaves unresolved whether section 6A(3) implicitly confers jurisdiction or merely modifies the transfer obligation.","confidence":0.68,"description":"Section 6A(4) expressly states that nothing in section 6A confers jurisdiction that a court would not otherwise have, mirroring section 5(9) and section 4(1)/(2)'s conferral provisions. However, section 6A(2) expressly permits the Federal Court to transfer a federal matter proceeding to a Supreme Court, and section 6A(3) permits a Supreme Court to retain a federal matter proceeding. If the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the federal matter under section 4, section 6A(3) would permit retention of a proceeding over which the court has no jurisdiction — a result section 6A(4) purports to prevent."}],"contradictions":[{"severity":"high","section_a":"3(1) definition of 'State' (includes ACT and NT)","section_b":"3(1) definition of 'Territory' (excludes ACT and NT)","confidence":0.88,"description":"The ACT and NT are simultaneously 'States' for the purposes of the Act (by virtue of the 'State' definition) and not 'Territories' (by virtue of the 'Territory' definition). Operative provisions refer to both 'State' and 'Territory' courts throughout (e.g. sections 4, 5, 6, 7), making it unclear in several instances whether the ACT and NT courts are captured twice, once, or in which capacity. For example, section 4(1)(c) refers to 'Supreme Court of a State (other than the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory)' — acknowledging that ACT and NT are 'States' under the definition but then explicitly carving them out, while section 4(1)(d) refers to 'Supreme Court of a Territory (including the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory)' — treating them as Territories despite the definition excluding them from 'Territory'."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"5(1) - mandatory transfer to Federal Court where interests of justice require","section_b":"6(1) - mandatory transfer to Federal Court for special federal matters","confidence":0.72,"description":"Both sections impose mandatory transfer obligations on the Supreme Court. Section 5 applies to any civil proceeding where interests of justice favour Federal Court determination. Section 6 applies specifically to special federal matters. The note to section 5 states it is subject to section 6, implying section 6 is lex specialis. However, section 6(3) allows retention for 'special reasons', while section 5 has no equivalent retention power. A Supreme Court facing a special federal matter could arguably invoke section 5(1)(b)(iii) (interests of justice) to transfer to another Supreme Court rather than the Federal Court, circumventing section 6's channelling of special federal matters specifically to the Federal Court."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"7(1) - no appeal from Federal Court single judge to Full Court of Supreme Court","section_b":"7(7) - Full Court of Supreme Court may receive transferred Federal Court appeals","confidence":0.62,"description":"Section 7(1) prohibits institution of an appeal from a Federal Court single judge to the Full Court of a Supreme Court. Section 7(7) contemplates that the Full Court of a Supreme Court may have commenced hearing a proceeding by way of appeal and must transfer it to the Federal Full Court if it transpires the matter is a Schedule matter. This implies a proceeding by way of appeal may have been instituted in the Full Court of the Supreme Court from a Federal Court single judge decision, which section 7(1) prohibits. The mechanism by which such a proceeding reaches the Full Court of the Supreme Court in the first place — when section 7(1) bars its institution there — is not explained."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"6(1) - court 'must transfer' special federal matters","section_b":"6(9) - inadvertent determination not invalidated","confidence":0.85,"description":"Section 6(1) imposes a mandatory obligation to transfer proceedings involving special federal matters. Section 6(9) provides that inadvertent non-compliance with this mandatory obligation does not invalidate the resulting decision. This directly contradicts the mandatory nature of the obligation: a mandatory duty that produces no legal consequence upon breach (even if inadvertent) is functionally indistinguishable from a directory one, contradicting the legislative intent expressed by 'must'."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"11(1)(a) - apply law of State/Territory in which court is sitting","section_b":"11(1)(b) - apply law of State/Territory under which right of action arises","confidence":0.7,"description":"Section 11(1)(a) provides the default rule that a court applies the law of the jurisdiction in which it sits (including its choice of law rules). Section 11(1)(b) provides that where a matter is a right of action under the written law of another State or Territory, the court applies the law of that other jurisdiction. The relationship between these paragraphs is governed by 'subject to' language (b is subject to c; a is subject to b and c), but the interaction between the forum's choice of law rules under (a) and the mandatory foreign law application under (b) is contradictory: the forum's choice of law rules under (a) might themselves direct application of the foreign law, making (b) redundant, or might direct application of forum law, directly contradicting (b)'s mandatory command. There is no hierarchy established for when the forum's choice of law rules and paragraph (b) point in different directions."},{"severity":"low","section_a":"4(3) - jurisdiction conferred on court receiving transferred proceeding","section_b":"5(9) - section 5 does not confer jurisdiction","confidence":0.6,"description":"Section 4(3) confers jurisdiction on courts that receive transferred proceedings. Section 5(9) states that section 5 does not confer jurisdiction. These provisions are not directly contradictory if read as meaning section 5 transfers the proceeding and section 4(3) supplies the jurisdiction. However, section 4(3) is triggered 'where a proceeding is transferred' — which requires section 5's transfer mechanism. The logical dependency creates a circularity: section 5 is needed to trigger section 4(3) jurisdiction, but section 5(9) disclaims any jurisdictional conferral by section 5. If section 4(3) is read as autonomous, section 5(9) is merely clarificatory; if section 4(3) requires a valid transfer to have occurred, section 5 is load-bearing despite the disclaimer."}]},"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"source":"grok-batch-everything"},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":8,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The legislation has grown significantly beyond its 1987 core purpose of mutual conferral of jurisdiction and simple transfer between federal and state Supreme Courts. Amendments have expanded the definition of special federal matters to capture new subject areas (Competition Code, s 60G Family Law Act matters, updates to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and s 39B Judiciary Act matters), incorporated multiple new federal statutes (Fair Work Act 2009, Native Title Act 1993, Australian Consumer Law provisions), added the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), introduced s 6A for Commonwealth authorities exercising state functions, and created subject-specific transfer rules in s 10, thereby broadening both the categories of cases caught and the procedural machinery required."},"complexity_factors":["Multi-layered conditional tests in section 5 with three alternative grounds for transfer, each containing nested sub-criteria (A–D) that require courts to form opinions on hypothetical jurisdiction","Extensive definition of 'special federal matter' in s 3(1) containing paragraphs (a)–(e), subparagraphs, multiple cross-references to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Family Law Act 1975 and Judiciary Act 1903, plus exclusions","Separate but overlapping transfer regimes in ss 5, 6, 6A and 10, each with different triggers, exceptions and 'interests of justice' considerations","Interplay between federal and state cross-vesting laws explicitly preserved in s 9(1), requiring simultaneous reading of this Act and equivalent state legislation","Detailed procedural safeguards in s 6(3)–(6) for special federal matters including mandatory Attorney-General notice, adjournment powers and a 'general rule' that such matters should go to the Federal Court","Appeal routing restrictions in s 7 that differentiate between single-judge decisions, Full Courts, State Family Courts and Schedule-listed Acts"],"plain_english_summary":"**This Act creates a practical system for moving civil (non-criminal) court cases between Australia's Federal Court, state Supreme Courts, territory Supreme Courts and certain family courts.**\n\nIt gives these courts extra legal power (jurisdiction) so they can hear disputes that mix federal and state or territory legal issues, preventing cases from being dismissed simply because the 'wrong' court started them. The core mechanism is a set of transfer rules: a court must move a case if it is more closely connected to another court or if it is in the 'interests of justice' (a flexible test that considers fairness, efficiency and the nature of the legal questions involved).\n\nSpecial extra rules apply to 'special federal matters' such as certain competition and consumer law cases, administrative law challenges to government decisions, and specific family law appeals. These normally must go to the Federal Court unless a Supreme Court judge decides there are unusual reasons to keep the case.\n\nThe law also sets rules on how appeals are routed, which laws a court must apply when it hears a transferred case, how costs and judgments are handled across courts, and even when the entire scheme can be suspended if states stop cooperating.\n\nIt affects anyone involved in civil litigation that touches both federal and state law, the judges who decide transfers, and lawyers who need to appear in multiple court systems. It matters because Australia's federal system creates overlapping court powers; this Act reduces technical arguments, avoids duplicated effort and aims to get each dispute to the court best placed to decide it."},"summary":{"complexity_score":8,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act's original 1987 scope has been materially expanded through amendments. The initial framework covered the Federal Court and state/territory Supreme Courts. Over time, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) was added as a co-equal participant throughout the Act. New categories of 'special federal matters' were added (including family law matters under s60G of the Family Law Act). Section 6A — addressing the specific scenario of Commonwealth authorities exercising powers under state laws — was inserted as an entirely new regime not present in the original Act. Exclusions in section 4(4) have expanded significantly to cover modern workplace relations legislation (Fair Work Act, Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act, Federal Safety Commissioner Act). The Australian Consumer Law transfer provision (section 10) was updated to reflect the recodification of consumer law into the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. These changes reflect both machinery updates and deliberate policy decisions to carve out specific legal domains from the cross-vesting scheme."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple interacting court systems (Federal Court, Federal Circuit and Family Court, state Supreme Courts, Territory Supreme Courts, State Family Courts) each with distinct rules","Reciprocal and conditional jurisdiction-vesting provisions that depend on what other courts do or don't have power to do","Layered transfer obligations — some transfers are mandatory, others discretionary, with different criteria applying depending on which direction the transfer runs","The 'special federal matters' regime adds a parallel and overriding transfer framework with procedural prerequisites (Attorney-General notification) and exceptions to exceptions","Section 6A creates a further carve-out from the special federal matters rules for Commonwealth authorities acting under state laws, adding a third overlay","Appeal routing provisions create a complex matrix of permissible and impermissible appellate pathways across different court combinations","Choice of law rules for transferred proceedings require courts to determine which jurisdiction's law governs — including 'choice of law rules' within those laws (a meta-level complexity)","The Act's continued operation depends on external events (state laws remaining in force, Proclamations) creating contingent and potentially variable application","Dense cross-referencing between sections and to multiple other Commonwealth Acts (Competition and Consumer Act, Family Law Act, Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, Judiciary Act, Fair Work Act etc.)","Constitutional dimension — the Act must be construed not to exceed Commonwealth legislative power, reflecting the underlying constitutional complexity of Australia's federal court system"],"plain_english_summary":"## What This Law Does\n\nThe **Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987** solves a practical problem in Australia's federal legal system: what happens when a dispute doesn't neatly fit within one court's authority, or when related cases are stuck in different courts across different states and territories?\n\n### The Problem It Fixes\nAustralia has multiple court systems — federal courts (like the Federal Court of Australia) and state/territory Supreme Courts. Historically, a court might lack the legal *jurisdiction* (power/authority) to hear a particular case, even if it was the most convenient or logical place to do so. Related cases could end up split across different courts in different jurisdictions, wasting time and money.\n\n### What It Actually Does\n\n**1. Gives Courts Shared Power (Cross-vesting)**\nThe Act effectively shares (or \"cross-vests\") jurisdiction between courts. For example:\n- If the Federal Court can hear a civil matter, state Supreme Courts also get power to hear it\n- If a Territory Supreme Court has jurisdiction over something, the Federal Court and other state Supreme Courts also get that power\n\n**2. Allows Cases to Be Moved Between Courts**\nCourts can — and sometimes *must* — transfer cases to a more appropriate court. The key factors courts consider are:\n- Whether a related case is already running in another court\n- Whether the case really \"belongs\" in that other court based on what law applies\n- The overall **interests of justice**\n\n**3. Special Rules for \"Special Federal Matters\"**\nSome types of cases are designated \"special federal matters\" — these are disputes that involve uniquely federal laws, such as:\n- Competition and consumer law (e.g., cartel conduct)\n- Judicial review (challenging government decisions) under federal law\n- Cases within the Federal Court's core original jurisdiction\n\nFor these, a state Supreme Court *must* transfer the case to the Federal Court unless there are special, extraordinary reasons not to. Attorneys-General must be notified and given a chance to make submissions first.\n\n**4. Appeal Routing Rules**\nThe Act specifies which court you can appeal to, preventing cases from going to the wrong appellate court. For instance, you can't appeal a Federal Court judge's decision to a state Supreme Court's Full Court.\n\n**5. What Law Applies After a Transfer?**\nWhen a case moves between courts, the Act specifies which state or territory's laws apply — generally the laws of the place where the court is sitting, but if the case is about rights under another state's laws, those laws follow the case.\n\n**6. Transferred Cases Carry Their History**\nIf a case is moved, the receiving court treats all the steps already taken (hearings, orders, etc.) as if they had happened in its own court.\n\n### Who Does This Affect?\n- **Individuals and businesses** involved in civil litigation (lawsuits) that cross state/territory or federal/state boundaries\n- **Lawyers** whose right to appear in court follows a transferred case\n- **Courts themselves** — they gain new powers and new obligations under this Act\n- **Government agencies** — particularly relevant when Commonwealth officers exercise powers under state laws\n\n### Important Limits\n- This Act **only applies to civil cases** — criminal cases are excluded\n- Certain specific areas of law are excluded, including workplace relations, native title, and some competition law provisions\n- No appeal is allowed against a court's decision to transfer (or not transfer) a case — that decision is final\n\n### The Bigger Picture\nThis Act works hand-in-hand with equivalent laws passed by each state and territory. It's designed as a cooperative, national scheme. If a state repeals its equivalent law or the scheme breaks down, the Commonwealth can suspend or terminate this Act's operation — even in relation to just that one state."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The text of the Act itself establishes cross‑vesting mechanisms and contains no internal amendment or provision that changes that core scope. It creates routes for conferring and transferring jurisdiction between federal and State/Territory courts (sections 3–11), sets exceptions (section 4(4)), and limits operation to constitutional power (section 15). The Act also provides for suspension or cessation by Proclamation if State cross‑vesting laws are ineffective or altered (section 16), but that is a conditional power to suspend application rather than a textual change to the Act's substantive scope."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple courts and institutional actors involved (Federal Court; Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1); State and Territory Supreme Courts; State Family Courts; Attorneys‑General; Governor‑General) (see sections 3, 5, 6, 6A, 16)","Wide discretionary standards for transfer (\"more appropriate\", \"interests of justice\", \"special reasons\") that require judicial assessment on a case‑by‑case basis (sections 5, 6)","Detailed definition and routing rules for \"special federal matters\" and separate procedures for those matters, including notification and adjournment steps involving Attorneys‑General (sections 3, 6)","Interplay with State cross‑vesting laws and explicit preservation of State provisions, plus Governor‑General power to suspend/cease operation depending on State legislative action (sections 9, 16)","Multiple exceptions and specified statutory carve‑outs where cross‑vesting does not apply (section 4(4) and Schedule references)","Rules on substantive law and procedure to be applied by transferee courts (including choice of law and application of another State's written law for particular rights) that affect outcomes beyond procedural forum (section 11)","Limits on appeals in relation to transfers and rules of evidence/procedure that constrain appellate review (sections 7, 13)","Cross‑referencing between provisions (e.g. note that sections 6 and 6A modify the operation of section 5) which increases interpretive complexity (see notes in sections 5 and 6)","Practical administrative steps (notice, possible cost authorisations, and removal or remittal powers) that introduce timing and coordination issues across jurisdictions (sections 6(4)–(7), 8, 12)"],"plain_english_summary":"What this law does, mechanically\n\n- The Act creates a system for \"cross‑vesting\" of civil court jurisdiction between federal courts (the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1)) and State and Territory superior courts (Supreme Courts and certain State Family Courts). It lets one court hear or transfer civil matters that another court would otherwise hear and sets the rules for how and when transfers must or may be made (see sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 9).  \n\n- It defines which disputes are \"special federal matters\" and creates mandatory transfer rules for those matters from State/Territory Supreme Courts to the Federal Court (or to specific family or Territory courts in limited circumstances) unless special reasons are shown (see section 3 definition and section 6).  \n\n- It gives courts broad, discretionary criteria for transferring proceedings between courts (\"more appropriate\", \"interests of justice\", whether a proceeding \"arises out of, or is related to,\" another pending matter) and requires courts to transfer in specified situations (see section 5).  \n\n- The Act limits certain appeals: for example, no appeal from a single judge of the Federal Court to a State Full Court; some appeals involving laws listed in the Schedule must be instituted and decided in federal Full Courts (see section 7).  \n\n- It sets rules about what substantive law a transferee court should apply when exercising vested jurisdiction (generally the law of the State/Territory where the court sits, with exceptions for rights arising under another State's written law) and about evidence and procedure in transferred matters (see section 11).  \n\n- The Act makes transferred judgments enforceable as if they had been given under the normal jurisdiction of the court that gave them, and it provides how references in other laws to particular courts are to be read when those functions are exercised under cross‑vesting (see section 14).  \n\n- The Governor‑General has power to fix commencement and to suspend or cease the Act (including in relation to particular States) by Proclamation, subject to notice rules and conditions (see sections 2 and 16).  \n\nWho decides and who pays (practical mechanics and discretion)\n\n- Which cases move: Courts themselves decide transfers by applying the statutory criteria (\"more appropriate\", \"interests of justice\", whether matters are related or arise out of others) — see section 5 (transfer rules) and section 6 (special federal matters). The Federal Court or Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) may also transfer under special rules in section 6A.  \n\n- Executive role and oversight: Attorneys‑General are part of the process for special federal matters — a State Supreme Court must notify the Commonwealth and State Attorneys‑General before keeping a special federal matter (section 6(4)–(6)). The Commonwealth Attorney‑General may authorise payments of costs arising from adjournments or corresponding state provisions (section 6(7)). The Governor‑General may suspend or terminate the Act (section 16).  \n\n- Costs: A transferee court may make orders about costs incurred before transfer (section 12). The Commonwealth Attorney‑General may authorise payment of some costs connected with adjournments under the special federal matter rules (section 6(7)).  \n\nWhat parties and lawyers must do (compliance burden)\n\n- Parties may apply for transfer or oppose it; courts may transfer on their own motion (section 5(7)). Parties may also be required by a court to give notices to Attorneys‑General in relation to special federal matters (section 6(4)–(5)).  \n\n- Practitioners: When a matter moves courts under cross‑vesting, lawyers who are entitled to practise in the originating court have the same entitlement to practise in the transferee court for that proceeding (section 5(8)).  \n\nEffects on legal substance and private behaviour (mechanisms, not judgements)\n\n- Forum and procedural choice: The Act changes where a case will be heard in a way that can affect litigation costs, timing and strategy because a court may apply the law of the place where it sits (section 11(1)–(2)) and may choose procedural and evidentiary rules it considers appropriate (section 11(1)(c)).  \n\n- Substantive law application: If a right of action arises under another State's written law, the transferee court must apply that other State's written and unwritten law for that right (section 11(1)(b)). That affects contract or property disputes that rest on State law.  \n\n- Related proceedings and efficiency trade‑offs: The Act explicitly recognises the desirability of related proceedings being heard in the same jurisdiction (see section 6A(2) and 6A(5)) and builds discretion around that aim; the practical trade‑off is that consolidation in one forum may reduce duplication but requires judicial and administrative coordination.  \n\nBoundaries, exceptions and constitutional limits\n\n- The Act lists statutory exceptions to its vesting rules (for example, certain industrial, native title and specified Competition and Consumer Act provisions) where section 4 does not apply (section 4(4)).  \n\n- The Act must be read subject to the Constitution and only operates to the extent it is within Commonwealth power (section 15).  \n\nImplementation and risks to note (mechanical effects and foreseeable implementation friction)\n\n- Judicial discretion: The Act uses open‑ended standards (\"more appropriate\", \"interests of justice\", \"special reasons\") that give courts significant discretion about transfers (sections 5, 6). That creates case‑by‑case uncertainty about forum outcomes and could increase pre‑trial argument about jurisdiction.  \n\n- Administrative coordination: The need for notices to Attorneys‑General and possible Commonwealth cost authorisations introduces an administrative step and potential delay when a State Supreme Court considers retaining a special federal matter (section 6(4)–(7)).  \n\n- Inter‑jurisdictional dependencies: The Act depends on State cross‑vesting laws and allows the Governor‑General to suspend operation in whole or part if State laws are not effective or are altered (section 16). That link means the Act’s practical scope can vary depending on State legislative action.  \n\nKey statutory citations in brief: see definitions and scope (section 3); additional federal jurisdiction (section 4); transfer rules (section 5); special federal matters and procedural rules/notifications (sections 6 and 6A); appeals limits (section 7); law and procedure to be applied (section 11); costs (section 12 and section 6(7)); enforcement of judgments (section 14); limits because of the Constitution and governor‑general powers (sections 15 and 16)."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987","history":"/api/acts/jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987/history","analysis":"/api/acts/jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/jurisdiction-of-courts-cross-vesting-act-1987/documents"}}