Maher, Ex parte - Re Commonwealth Bank of Australia & Ors

This matter concerned an application by Maher for a writ of prohibition directed to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and two of its officers, seeking to prevent them from continuing proceedings in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from allegations that the Commonwealth Bank had engaged in conduct in contravention of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) and the *Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before Hayne J was whether the Magistrates' Court of Victoria had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings instituted by Maher against the Commonwealth Bank and its officers. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the *Trade Practices Act 1974* and the *Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001* conferred jurisdiction on a State Magistrates' Court to hear and determine such a matter, or if exclusive jurisdiction lay with the Federal Court of Australia.

Hayne J reasoned that the *Trade Practices Act 1974* and the *Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001* are Commonwealth statutes. Under section 39B of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth), the Federal Court of Australia has jurisdiction in matters arising under Commonwealth laws. While section 39B does not confer jurisdiction on State courts, it does not preclude them from exercising jurisdiction conferred by State legislation. However, the relevant provisions of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* and the *Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001* did not grant jurisdiction to State Magistrates' Courts to hear and determine the specific claims made by Maher. Consequently, the Magistrates' Court of Victoria lacked the necessary jurisdiction to proceed.

The application for a writ of prohibition was granted.