Case: PMT Partners Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service [1995] HCA 36 ; (1995) 184 CLR 301
Outcome: referred to
original jurisdiction previously exercised by this Court in relation to migration decisions is, subject to certain exceptions, now vested in the Federal Magistrates Court. The matters removed from the jurisdiction of this Court are described by reference to subject matter and the nexus with the subject matter removed from the jurisdiction of the Court is identified by words of wide import, namely, 'in relation to' although I recognise that the precise nexus identified by those words will be determined by the provisions of the Act in which they appear: PMT Partners Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service [1995] HCA 36 ; (1995) 184 CLR 301 per Toohey and Gummow JJ at 331-332. I do not think this Court has original jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining the second respondent from removing the applicant from Australia. The applicant sought to overcome the difficulties posed by s 476A by submitting that this Court has jurisdiction over his claim insofar as it involves a claim for an injunction against the first respondent who is alleged to be an officer of the Commonwealth (ie, the first injunction seeking to restrain a breach of a duty of care in tort) in relation to the detention of the applicant, and that the claim in tort against the Commonwealth in relation to both the detention and removal of the applicant and the claim that the removal of the applicant was beyond power and ultra vires are part of the accrued jurisdiction of the Court. The applicant submitted that s 476A is directed to the original jurisdiction of the Court and not the accrued jurisdiction of the Court. In this case the submission that this Court has accrued jurisdiction is a novel one because the claim said to fall within the accrued jurisdiction is in fact a federal claim. By reason of an express statutory provision it is within the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court and not this Court. This exposes the fallacy of the applicant's argument. I do not think there can be accrued jurisdiction over a federal claim removed from the original jurisdiction of this Court and entrusted to the Federal Magistrates Court. I do not think that it is appropriate to make orders in relation to the draft notice of objection to competency. Part of the applicant's claim is within the jurisdiction of this Court, namely, the claim for an injunction against the first respondent and I did not understand the respondents to argue that this claim was not arguable. The claims in tort for damages against the Commonwealth of Australia may be within the associated or accrued jurisdiction of the court and if necessary I will hear further from the parties on this question. It is appropriate to make orders on the second respondent's notice of motion. I will make the order sought in paragraph 1 of the notice of motion. Furthermore, it seems to me that it is also appropriate to make the orders sought in paragraphs 2 and 3, but because there was some uncertainty in the respondents' submissions as to whether I should make the order sought in paragraph 2, I will hear further from the parties (if they seek to be heard) as to the orders sought in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of motion.