Culleton v The State of Western Australia

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.