CTHHCA
PCS Operations Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia
[1998] HCA 29
High Court of Australia|1998-04-17|Before: Gaudron J
View original sourceAt a glance
Source factsCourt
High Court of Australia
Decision date
1998-04-17
Before
Gaudron J
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Judgment (3 paragraphs)
[1]
- 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.
[2]
- 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.
[3]