Culleton v The State of Western Australia - [2025] HCATrans 29

[2025] HCATrans 029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Canberra No C16 of 2024
B e t w e e n -
RODNEY NORMAN CULLETON
Plaintiff
and
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Defendant

BEECH‑JONES J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA AND BY VIDEO CONNECTION
ON WEDNESDAY, 9 APRIL 2025, AT 11.38 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
HIS HONOUR: In accordance with the protocol for remote hearings, I will announce the appearances of the parties.
MR R.N. CULLETON appears in person.
MR C.S. BYDDER, SC appears for the defendant. (instructed by State Solicitor for Western Australia)
HIS HONOUR: Mr Culleton, can you hear me?
MR CULLETON: Yes, loud and clear, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, and I can hear you. This matter has been called for a directions hearing, and the specific question the Court wishes to consider is whether the proceedings should be remitted to the Federal Court of Australia. I have some written material from you on that topic. Is there anything further you wish to say about whether they should be remitted?
MR CULLETON: Well, we oppose that but can I just – a couple of matters housekeeping, your Honour. I just want to let the Court know that since filing this application I have broken my left leg and I am on some serious painkillers, but I am okay to proceed. Just to make sure, for clarity, this is a directions hearing, and I have only, of yesterday, received filing of the defendant’s outline of submissions.
So, I am little bit confused whether they are foreshadowing an interlocutory application to oppose the section 44 remittal or are we just dealing with that today at the discretion of the High Court, because I have made some notes and I will need at least 10 or 15 minutes to address the Court, under my circumstances? I have only just perused their submissions to oppose it, because I would have thought they would – as a matter of due process – served that on me a few days prior so I had time to go over it and present to the Court. So, as long as you are aware of that, your Honour, I am okay to proceed, but I will read off a paper because that is the best I can do under the circumstances.

HIS HONOUR: That is fine, Mr Culleton. The Court is considering it of its own motion, and I am ready to hear what you have to say on the topic.
MR CULLETON: Okay. First of all, I understand his Honour would be in receipt of the defendant’s submissions for directions hearing today. It was filed with the High Court on 8 April. Although it is dated 7 April, it did not come to filing until 8 April, which was yesterday. So, are you in possession of that document, your Honour?
HIS HONOUR: I am.
MR CULLETON: Have you had a chance to read through that document, your…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Culleton v The State of Western Australia

Details

AGLC: Culleton v The State of Western Australia [2025] HCATrans 29
Case: [2025] HCATrans 29
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rodney Norman Culleton (the applicant) brought proceedings in the High Court of Australia against the State of Western Australia (the respondent). The applicant sought declarations that certain directions and provisions of the *Emergency Management Act 2005* (WA) were invalid, alleging they contravened section 92 of the Constitution by prohibiting his re-entry into Western Australia. The High Court, on its own motion, considered whether the proceedings should be remitted to the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the proceedings, which challenged the validity of state-level emergency directions and provisions of a state Act on constitutional grounds, should be heard by the High Court or remitted to the Federal Court. This involved determining whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear such matters and whether remittal was appropriate given the High Court's role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and its previous decision in *Palmer v Western Australia* concerning similar legislation. The applicant also raised concerns about the open court principle in the context of remote hearings.

The High Court reasoned that while the applicant contended for the High Court's exclusive jurisdiction, the Federal Court clearly possessed jurisdiction over matters arising under the Constitution, including interpretation. The Court noted that the applicant's case appeared to be an attempt to revisit the decision in *Palmer v Western Australia*, where similar provisions of the *Emergency Management Act 2005* (WA) were considered. The Court applied the principle that its original jurisdiction should not be diverted from its principal functions by matters that could properly be heard in a federal trial court, citing *Ravenor Overseas Inc v Readhead* and *Lee v Commonwealth*. The Court found that the applicant's writ and statement of claim were not properly pleaded and that intensive case management would be required, which would risk diverting the Court from its core functions. The Court also noted that the Federal Court could conclusively determine the constitutional questions, subject to appeal.

Accordingly, the High Court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Perth Registry of the Federal Court of Australia. The Court declined to consider the respondent's alternative submission to strike out the proceedings, noting the possibility of a viable cause of action emerging. The Court also addressed the applicant's concern about the open court principle, stating that the remote hearing was being broadcast and its transcript would be publicly available.

Orders