Fje20 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, Fje20, sought to bring proceedings against the Minister for Home Affairs. The dispute concerned the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court to hear the applicant's claims. The matter came before Driver J of the Federal Circuit Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it possessed the necessary statutory jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claims. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if any provision of a statute or legislative instrument conferred jurisdiction on the Federal Circuit Court to hear the type of claims the applicant sought to bring, particularly in light of the limitations on its jurisdiction as established by legislation.

Driver J reasoned that the Federal Circuit Court's original jurisdiction is strictly confined to that conferred by statute. The Court's jurisdiction in migration matters is primarily governed by section 476(1) of the *Migration Act*, which grants it the same original jurisdiction as the High Court has under paragraph 75(v) of the Constitution in relation to migration decisions. Drawing on High Court authority, particularly in construing section 476A of the *Migration Act*, the Court held that the phrase "in relation to a migration decision" is confined to public law remedies in the nature of judicial review. This interpretation means the jurisdiction does not extend to collateral attacks on migration decisions, such as claims for damages for false imprisonment. Section 14 of the *Federal Circuit Court Act*, which aims to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, was found not to confer jurisdiction itself but rather to operate where jurisdiction already exists.

Consequently, the respondents successfully established that the Court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the application. Driver J ordered that the applicant's amended application, and 56 other matters listed for mention with this case, be dismissed. The Court also indicated it would hear the parties on the issue of costs.