Mortensen v Enviro Water Tanks Pty Ltd

The applicant, Mortensen, brought two proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia against Enviro Water Tanks Pty Ltd and others. One proceeding was brought under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) (FW Act), and the other under the *Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986* (Cth) (AHRC Act). The respondents asserted that claims they, and another party, intended to make in the Supreme Court of New South Wales would be an answer to the claims brought by the applicant in the Federal Circuit Court.

The court was required to determine whether the claims made or intended to be made in the three proceedings arose out of a common substratum of facts. If they did, the court then had to consider whether, despite this commonality, there was not one single "matter" in relation to the claims brought under the FW Act and the AHRC Act. Further, the court needed to ascertain whether a federal claim intended to be made in the Supreme Court proceeding formed part of the "matter" arising under the FW Act and the AHRC Act, or if it constituted a distinct federal matter. The court also had to decide if this federal claim made in the Supreme Court was associated with the matters under the FW Act and AHRC Act, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Federal Circuit Court under s 18 of the *Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999* (Cth). Finally, the court had to determine how the non-federal claims and the federal claim made in the Supreme Court proceeding were to be treated in relation to the matters arising under the FW Act and the AHRC Act.

Judge Manousaridis found that all three claims arose out of a common substratum of facts. However, the federal claim intended to be made in the Supreme Court was not considered part of the matters arising under the FW Act or the AHRC Act, but rather a distinct federal matter. The court held that it had jurisdiction in relation to all the claims. The non-federal claims made in the Supreme Court proceeding were treated as part of the matter arising under the AHRC Act, and the federal claim made in the Supreme Court proceeding was treated as associated with the matter arising under the AHRC Act.