PCS Operations Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [1998] HCA 29 | Case summary

High Court of Australia|1998-04-17|Before: Gaudron J

For the reasons given, there is little, if anything, to commend any of the applications for removal, applications which, if granted, have the potential to delay or disrupt the proceedings presently before the Federal Court. Accordingly, the applications by the NFF parties and by those Patrick parties who have sought removal under s 40(1) of the Judiciary Act should be dismissed with costs.

The application by the Attorney-General stands in a somewhat different position in that s 40(1) provides for removal "as of course" in the case of his application. That notwithstanding, the only jurisdictional issue which is appropriately dealt with by this Court is that relating to the validity of the Cross-vesting Acts. That is a constitutional question and it is a question that has arisen in the sense that, so far as concerns the three causes of action in issue, the NFF interests have advanced a challenge to all possible sources of jurisdiction. As already explained, however, it is not a question that will necessarily fall for decision. For the reasons given with respect to s 32(1) of the Federal Court Act, it is a question more likely to arise with respect to the action for inducing breach of contract, than in relation to the conspiracy claims.

The appropriate course with respect to the Attorney-General's application is to remove the whole of the cause pending in the Federal Court but to remit the proceedings back to that Court save for the question whether s 4(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 Vic and s 9(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 Cth are invalid in their application to the claim by the MUA interests that the Patrick interests and the NFF interests induced a breach of contracts relating to the employment of certain MUA members. The determination of that question should await a determination by the Federal Court of the question whether it otherwise has jurisdiction with respect to that cause of action. The costs of the Attorney-General's application should abide the outcome of the proceedings in this Court.

High Court of Australia Gaudron J PCS Operations Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [1998] HCA 29

PCS Operations Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia