Crosby v Kelly

Last updated
Crosby v Kelly
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Citation(2012) 203 FCR 451; [2012] FCAFC 96
Case history
Subsequent actions
  • Special leave to High Court denied [2013] HCATrans 17
  • Case withdrawn on retrial in Federal Court
Keywords
Defamation, jurisdiction of Federal Court

Crosby v Kelly is an important Federal Court of Australia case concerning the jurisdiction of the court to hear defamation claims. The judgment of the Full Court confirmed that the Court has original jurisdiction to hear defamation claims that could be heard by a Territory court, specifically the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The consequence of this is that almost any defamatory comment made on the Internet and in the national press could be brought before the Federal Court.

Contents

Background

When hearing a claim between two private parties, the Federal Court of Australia can usually only hear claims that arise under federal laws or the Australian Constitution. [1] As such, the court does not normally have jurisdiction over claims solely alleging damages under common law torts like defamation. Before Crosby, the only way a defamation claim could be brought before the court was where the defendant sought to bring a defence under a federal law (or the Constitution) or where the plaintiff brought the defamation claim in addition to claims made under federal laws, in which case the court is sitting in its "accrued jurisdiction". [2]

The Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 provides, at section 48AA, that a law of the ACT Legislative Assembly can confer concurrent jurisdiction over Territory law matters. The Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) and its corresponding law in the Australian Capital Territory allow the Federal Court of Australia to hear matters over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. [3] [4]

The Nigel Bowen Building in Acton, pictured in 2011, which houses Australian Capital Territory registry of the Federal Court where the case was filed. Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts Building.jpg
The Nigel Bowen Building in Acton, pictured in 2011, which houses Australian Capital Territory registry of the Federal Court where the case was filed.

The Federal Court has long had jurisdiction to hear matters arising under specific statutes made for the Australian Capital Territory, usually by the Australian Parliament under section 122 of the Constitution. From the Federal Court's establishment in 1976 until 2002, the court served as the territory's appellate court. In 1999, the High Court of Australia held in Spinks v Prentice, which was heard together with Re Wakim; ex parte McNally , that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear matters arising under the Corporations Law of the Australian Capital Territory, but not the separate corporations laws of the States. [5]

By the 2000s, the Federal Court began to hear cases arising under the Territory's common law, rather than statutes made for it.

In 2000, Justice Finn of the Federal Court held, in O'Neill v Mann, that a provision in the Jurisdiction of Courts Act allowing matters to be transferred from the ACT Supreme Court to the Federal Court was valid. [6] The O'Neill case concerned a defamation matter for which no Supreme Court judges were available due to disqualification and, unlike Crosby, was not initiated in the Federal Court.

In 2002, the High Court held, in Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick , that an Australian court has jurisdiction to hear a defamation claim relating to online publications where the publication is "downloaded and read" by someone in the jurisdiction.

Facts and arguments

Mike Kelly, pictured here in 2008, was the defendant in this case Mike Kelly Portrait 2008.jpg
Mike Kelly, pictured here in 2008, was the defendant in this case

The plaintiffs, campaign strategists Lynton Crosby and Mark Textor, brought the case in response to a tweet accusing the pair of "push polling" posted by the defendant, Dr Mike Kelly. [7] Kelly was the Member for Eden-Monaro in the House of Representatives and a parliamentary secretary in the Gillard ministry at the time. The plaintiffs argued that the tweet was likely to have been seen by Kelly's followers including people within the Australian Capital Territory.

The case was a "pure" defamation case, in the sense that the plaintiffs did not allege a breach of a federal law. Although none of the plaintiffs, nor the defendant, lived in the Australian Capital Territory, the plaintiffs stated their claim under the defamation law of the Territory. Kelly chose not to rely on defences relating to his parliamentary privilege or on a constitutional defence (such as the Lange defence) which would have more readily attracted the Federal Court's jurisdiction, instead arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction over the case. [8]

The Attorneys-General of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory joined the case as interveners.

Decision

Robertson J's judgment, the longest one with which the rest of the panel agreed, found that civil cases arising under the laws of the Australian Capital Territory were within the Federal Court's statutory jurisdiction even where the law was a common law rule rather than a statute. In other words, due to the Jurisdiction of Courts Act, the common law of the Australian Capital Territory is picked up as a law of the Commonwealth.

Perram J's judgment expanded on Robertson's points by constructing the Jurisdiction of Courts Act as a "surrogate" federal law which Territory matters can arise under for the purposes of Chapter III of the Constitution.

Aftermath

Kelly sought leave to appeal the decision to the High Court. The Court heard oral arguments in April 2013, immediately dismissing the appeal. [9] The case returned to the Federal Court where Kelly had several defences struck out. [10] The case continued for another two years before, in July 2015, Kelly apologised to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs withdrew the case. [11]

The main consequence of Crosby is that a plaintiff can now choose whether to bring their cases before the Federal Court in defamation cases involving social media or mass media that is likely to have been seen in an Australian territory. Post-Crosby, several prominent defamation cases have been brought before the Court including Barilaro v Shanks-Markovina, Dutton v Bazzi , the defamation cases brought by Ben Roberts-Smith against Fairfax Media, and the case brought by Geoffrey Rush against the Daily Telegraph .

Another consequence relates to jury trials in defamation cases. The Federal Court's enabling legislation severely limits the availability of juries in civil trials brought before it, whereas most state defamation laws allow parties to a defamation case to request that the matter be heard by a jury. [12] [13] [lower-alpha 1] A plaintiff in a State with civil jury trials may choose to bring a case before the Federal Court in order to avoid facing a jury, because the Federal Court limits the use of juries to exceptional circumstances.

Procedure in the Federal Court also differs greatly from the State and Territory courts. The Federal Court has a greater preference for written affidavits and submissions over oral evidence which may allow plaintiffs to control the conduct of the case. [14]

Notes

  1. In South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, jury trials in all civil matters have been abolished.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate court</span> Court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal

An appellate court, commonly called a court of appeal(s), appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In much of the world, court systems are divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts, often on a discretionary basis. A particular court system's supreme court is its highest appellate court. Appellate courts nationwide can operate under varying rules.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal jurisdiction (United States)</span> Legal scope of the powers of the U.S. federal government

Federal jurisdiction refers to the legal scope of the government's powers in the United States of America.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

In the United States, a state court has jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state. State courts handle the vast majority of civil and criminal cases in the United States; the United States federal courts are far smaller in terms of both personnel and caseload, and handle different types of cases. States often provide their trial courts with general jurisdiction and state trial courts regularly have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their subject-matter jurisdiction arises only under federal law.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants taking actions to have their legal case heard in the court they believe is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and thus have attracted plaintiffs to file new cases there, even if there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. They are the companion to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rules promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act become part of the FRCP unless, within seven months, the United States Congress acts to veto them. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body.

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory</span> Superior court of the Australian Capital Territory, Australia

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory is the highest court of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). It has unlimited jurisdiction within the territory in civil matters and hears the most serious criminal matters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Singapore</span> Lower division of national supreme court

The High Court of Singapore is the lower division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the upper division being the Court of Appeal. The High Court consists of the chief justice and the judges of the High Court. Judicial Commissioners are often appointed to assist with the Court's caseload. There are two specialist commercial courts, the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court, and a number of judges are designated to hear arbitration-related matters. In 2015, the Singapore International Commercial Court was established as part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, and is a division of the High Court. The other divisions of the high court are the General Division, the Appellate Division, and the Family Division. The seat of the High Court is the Supreme Court Building.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Norfolk Island</span> Superior court for the Australian territory of Norfolk Island

The Supreme Court of Norfolk Island is the superior court for the Australian territory of Norfolk Island. It has unlimited jurisdiction within the territory in civil matters and hears the most serious criminal matters. It also has jurisdiction over the Coral Sea Islands Territory. All matters are heard before a single judge, including appeals from the Court of Petty Sessions. In the Australian court hierarchy, it is one of eight state and territory Supreme Courts having unlimited jurisdiction in their respective parts of Australia. Appeal lies to the Federal Court of Australia, from which an appeal by special leave can be made to the High Court of Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Court of Australia</span> Australian superior federal court

The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law, along with some summary and indictable criminal matters. Cases are heard at first instance mostly by single judges. In cases of importance, a full court comprising three judges can be convened upon determination by the Chief Justice. The Court also has appellate jurisdiction, which is mostly exercised by a Full Court comprising three judges, the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the supreme courts of each of the states and territories. In relation to the other courts in the federal stream, it is superior to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for all jurisdictions except family law. It was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supplemental jurisdiction</span>

Supplemental jurisdiction, also sometimes known as ancillary jurisdiction or pendent jurisdiction, is the authority of United States federal courts to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim even though the court would lack the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is a codification of the Supreme Court's rulings on ancillary jurisdiction and pendent jurisdiction and a superseding of the Court's treatment of pendent party jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Local Court of the Northern Territory</span>

The Local Court of the Northern Territory is one of two levels of court in the Northern Territory of Australia. It has jurisdiction in civil disputes up to A$250,000, and in criminal cases in the trial of summary offences, and also deals with preliminary matters for indictable offences which are then heard by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. There are local courts held in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and some "bush courts" in remote locations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory</span> Court in Australia

The Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory is a court of summary jurisdiction that deals with the majority of criminal law matters and the majority of small civil law matters in the Australian Capital Territory, the Jervis Bay Territory and the Australian Antarctic Territory.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The Supreme Court of Christmas Island was the highest court for Christmas Island, an external territory of Australia. The court was originally established in 1958 after sovereignty over the island was transferred from the United Kingdom to Australia. The court had jurisdiction to deal with all serious crimes and major civil claims for damages occurring on the island. The court was abolished on 10 May 2002.

United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in order for a United States district court to have pendent jurisdiction over a state-law cause of action, state and federal claims must arise from the same "common nucleus of operative fact" and the plaintiff must expect to try them all at once. This case was decided before the existence of the current supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

The Virginia Circuit Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal cases. For civil cases, the courts have authority to try cases with an amount in controversy of more than $4,500 and have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims for more than $25,000. In criminal matters, the Circuit Courts are the trial courts for all felony charges and for misdemeanors originally charged there. The Circuit Courts also have appellate jurisdiction for any case from the Virginia General District Courts claiming more than $50, which are tried de novo in the Circuit Courts.

In Australia, defamation refers to the body of law that aims to protect individuals, groups, and entities from false or damaging statements that may cause harm to their reputation or standing in society. Australian defamation law is defined through a combination of common law and statutory law. Between 2014 and 2018, Australia earned the title of “world defamation capital”, recording 10 times as many libel claims as the UK on a per-capita basis.

References

  1. Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39b
  2. Rares, Steven (26 October 2006). Defamation and the Uniform Code. Media Law Conference, Marriott Hotel Sydney via AustLII.
  3. Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 9
  4. Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1993 (ACT) s 4
  5. Re Wakim; ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511; [1999] HCA 27.
  6. O'Neill v Mann (2000) 101 FCR 160; [2000] FCA 1180
  7. Boffey, Daniel (2013-05-11). "David Cameron's head of strategy sues Australian minister for libel". The Guardian. ISSN   1756-3224 . Retrieved 2023-01-27.
  8. Crosby v Kelly at [10]-[11].
  9. Kelly v Crosby [2013] HCATrans 17
  10. Crosby v Kelly [2013] FCA 1343 (11 December 2013), Federal Court (Australia)
  11. Inman, Michael (2015-07-01). "Mike Kelly defamation case ends with apology to Lynton Crosby and Mark Textor". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2023-01-27.
  12. Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss. 39 and 40.
  13. For example, Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 21.
  14. Leder, Richard; Schrapel, Sanjay; O'Beirne, Conor (December 2017). "Defamation Trials: Why Plaintiffs are Rush(ing) to File in the Federal Court" (PDF). CAMLA Communications Law Bulletin. 37 (4). Communications and Media Law Association Inc.: 1–5 via AustLII.