However, a rule may prescribe provisions of the Magistrates Court Act 1930, part 4.2 that do not apply in relation to the tribunal.

1. There are no relevant rules within the meaning of clause 22(2). The relevant provision of the Magistrates Court Act is section 262, which provides that:
   1. Cause of action arising, or defendant resident, outside ACT

_The Magistrates Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide a proceeding if - _

(a) the defendant was resident in the ACT when the claim was served on the defendant, even though all of the cause of action in the proceeding arose outside the ACT; or

(b) both of the following apply, even though the defendant is not in the ACT:

(i) a material part of the cause of action in the proceeding arose in the ACT, even though part of the cause of action arose outside the ACT;

(ii) the claim is served on the defendant in Australia or an external territory.

1. The respondent is a corporation with a registered office in NSW, and therefore is not resident in the ACT, so section 262(1)(a) does not apply. Instead, regard must be had to section 262(b), and in particular to the requirement in 262(b)(i) that a "material part of the cause of action in the proceeding arose in the ACT".
2. What is a 'material part of the cause of action'?
3. In Maxwell v Bedding (Australia) Pty Ltd [2016] ACAT 64, the Tribunal had regard to the Macquarie Dictionary to conclude that:

... it seems that to be a 'material' part of a cause of action, the relevant part need not be a major part, but it must relate to the claim, or have some consequence for it. Something of consequence for the claim must have happened in the ACT.[2]

1. Did a 'material' or 'consequential' part of the cause of action in this case occur in the ACT?
2. It is not apparent where the management agreements were signed, as this is not stated on the agreement.
3. The applicant contends that the 'material parts' of the action where as follows:
   • (a) All the properties the subject of the agency agreements were within the ACT and were subject to the legal framework of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal Act 1997 (ACT);
   • (b) The respondent sent staff members to the properties to conduct inspections, take photos, ensure maintenance was done, and all those activities were substantial obligations under the agency agreements that were undertaken within the ACT;
   • (c) The claim is based on an allegation that the respondent's employees did not attend the properties to conduct inspections, or did not attend this Tribunal to lodge applications when issues arose.
4. The applicant also notes that she commenced proceedings in the NCAT, but that those proceedings were withdrawn based on two sections of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) that may have prevented the commencement of the action in that jurisdiction.
5. This is a borderline case. The majority of the 'agency' functions undertaken by the respondent were administrative and were undertaken in Queanbeyan. One aspect of the case appears to involve an assertion that certain activities that should have been performed in the Territory were in fact not performed at all, further limiting the connection. Nonetheless, having regard to the fact that the properties are located in the Territory, at least some of the actions of the parties were within the Territory, and Territory law is in issue, it may be concluded that there is a sufficiently material or consequential connection to the Territory for the proceedings to continue in this forum.

1. The relevance of the High Court's decision in Burns v Corbett was expressly, and helpfully, raised by the applicant, who requested that the Tribunal consider the issue.
2. Burns v Corbett is a constitutional law decision that has had significant consequences for the jurisdiction of a number of other Tribunals across Australia.
3. In summary, in section 75(iv) of the Australian Constitution provides the High Court of Australia with original jurisdiction in matters:

...between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State...

1. This is commonly referred to as the Court's "diversity jurisdiction".
2. In Burns v Corbett the High Court held that while the diversity jurisdiction could be delegated to other Chapter III Courts, and to state courts, could not be conferred upon a non-court state tribunal.
3. The decision has potential consequences for state tribunals. However, it is not apparent that it applies to this tribunal, either in these cases or more generally.
4. In the present cases, the most relevant consideration is that the weight of authority holds that only 'natural persons' may be residents of a state for the purposes of the diversity jurisdiction. The respondent is a corporation, and is therefore not a resident of a state.[3]
5. More generally, the current weight of authority also indicates that Territory Courts derive their authority not from Chapter III of the Constitution, but from the 'Territories power' in section 122 of the Constitution.[4] The same reasoning would presumably apply to this tribunal, especially in circumstances where it is exercising powers in its civil jurisdiction.
6. Accordingly, the tribunal's jurisdiction to hear these matters is not affected by Burns v Corbett.

1. The tribunal has jurisdiction to determine these matters.
2. The proceedings are listed for a further directions hearing on Tuesday 9 October 2018 at 9:00am.

Oz Property Services trading as Oz Property Real Estate

[1] Australian Education Union v Lawler [2008] FCAFC 135 at [185] per Jessup J

[3] Geoffrey Lindell, Cowen and Zines's Federal Jurisdiction in Australia (Federation Press, 4th Ed, 2016), 149; Crouch v Commonwealth [1948] HCA 41; Jausnik v The Nominal Defendant (No 5) [2016] ACTSC 306 at [85] per Associate Justice Mossop

[4] Spratt v Hermes [1965] HCA 66; Re Governor; Goulburn Correctional Centre; Ex parte Eastman [1999] HCA 44