FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Raghubir v Nicolopoulos [2021] FCA 1073
File number(s): NSD 801 of 2021 Judgment of: RARES J Date of judgment: 3 September 2021 Catchwords: HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – federal jurisdiction – whether claim under Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) based on publication to persons only within State of allegedly defamatory letters arising out of backyard dispute within federal jurisdiction – whether any matter attracting judicial power of the Commonwealth – Held: proceeding dismissed for want of jurisdiction Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act1976 (Cth) s 19(1)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B(1A)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 9(3)
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 35(1)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 14B, 56A
Cases cited: Crosby v Kelly (2012) 203 FCR 451
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction Number of paragraphs: 16 Date of hearing: 3 September 2021 Solicitor for the Applicants: The Applicants appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondents: Condon Legal ORDERS
NSD 801 of 2021 BETWEEN: RENUKA RAGHUBIR
First Applicant
VIRENDRA SINGH
Second Applicant
AND: CHRISTINE NICOLOPOULOS
First Respondent
STRATA MANAGER SP7526
Second Respondent
STRATA TREASURER SP7526 (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
RARES J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 SEPTEMBER 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceeding be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
2.The applicants pay the respondents’ costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)RARES J:
On 6 August 2021, the applicants, Renuka Raghubir and Virendra Singh, filed an originating application in this Court claiming $5,504,100 damages for defamation under the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) in respect of what, conveniently, they said in their affidavit sworn on 6 August 2021 was a dispute as follows:
While we, the Plaintiffs were living there, we never talked to the defendants. We did not entertain her. The defendants started to instigate problems, by letting her dog bark at us every time we pass by from the front of the property, we go in the backyard to wash clothes, hang clothes, clean the backyard, do gardening in the backyard. The defendants will let her dog keep barking at us. Even when the defendants sense that we are in our kitchen, she will let her dog bark at us.
The applicants claim that the first respondent, their former next-door neighbour, Christine Nicolopoulos, who was the chairperson and secretary of the strata corporation in which both the applicants and the first respondent then lived. They claimed that, commencing on 2 July 2019, the first respondent wrote a series of allegedly defamatory letters to the other owners, and their real estate agents, of units in the block in Bexley, a suburb of Sydney. The applicants rely on these letters to claim that the first respondent alleged to the local council, as well as to their then
Continue reading Raghubir v Nicolopoulos
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Raghubir v Nicolopoulos [2021] FCA 1073
- Case
- [2021] FCA 1073
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the proceeding did not fall within the federal jurisdiction of the court. The dispute was purely local and did not involve any matter of national significance or any issue that would require the intervention of the federal judiciary. The allegedly defamatory letters, which were the consequence of the backyard dispute, were exchanged between the parties within the state and did not extend to any other state or territory, nor did they involve any federal law or constitutional matter. Consequently, the court concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the claim, and the proceeding was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
In light of the above, the court ordered that the proceeding be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the applicants were to pay the respondents' costs. This decision underscored the importance of determining the appropriate jurisdiction for a legal matter, particularly in cases that may appear to have a federal aspect but are essentially local in nature. The dismissal of the proceeding for want of jurisdiction serves as a reminder of the need to carefully assess jurisdictional boundaries in federal court matters.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The proceeding be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
2. The applicants pay the respondents’ costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.