Carrigan v Honourable Senator Michaelia Cash

The case of Carrigan v Honourable Senator Michaelia Cash involved an originating application for judicial review of a report provided to the Minister of Employment by Ms Carrigan, who sought to challenge the conduct of Mr Heerey, the author of the report, and the Minister in relation to her complaints about Vice President Lawler’s conduct during a conference in the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The key issue before the court was whether the conduct of Mr Heerey and the Minister, and the report itself, constituted "acts done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House [of the Australian Parliament]" within section 16(2) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) (the PP Act), or whether the report was prepared "for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of [the business of a House of the Australian Parliament]" within section 16(2)(c) of the PP Act. The respondents argued that the matters Ms Carrigan wished to agitate fell within the scope of parliamentary privilege and sought the striking out of the whole of the Statement of Claim and summary judgment on the basis that Ms Carrigan had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the action.

The court considered the principles established in Rann v Olsen, which held that the validity of section 16(3) of the PP Act should not be departed from unless it was plainly wrong. The court found that it was not satisfied that the conclusion in Rann v Olsen was plainly wrong and that it was an authoritative determination of the validity of section 16(3). The court held that the impugned conduct of Mr Heerey and the Minister constituted acts done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House, and that the Heerey Report was prepared for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of the business of a House of the Australian Parliament. Consequently, the court held that the Statement of Claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and struck it out, entering summary judgment for the respondents. The court also ordered that Ms Carrigan pay the costs of the respondents of and incidental to the proceedings.