Re Macks; Ex parte Saint

The High Court of Australia considered applications for writs of certiorari brought by parties affected by orders made by the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose because the Federal Court had made numerous winding-up orders and appointed liquidators to a group of companies, purportedly acting under jurisdiction conferred by cross-vesting legislation. However, subsequent High Court decisions, notably *Re Wakim*, had declared this cross-vesting legislation invalid, meaning the Federal Court had acted without jurisdiction when making these orders. The applicants sought to quash these orders, while also contending with the validity and effect of remedial State legislation enacted to preserve rights and liabilities determined by such ineffective Federal Court judgments.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the State legislation, which sought to preserve the legal effect of judgments made by the Federal Court without jurisdiction, was inconsistent with Commonwealth legislation, particularly the *Federal Court of Australia Act 1976* (Cth) and the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth). The Court also had to determine whether these State laws, by purporting to give effect to or provide a framework for dealing with judgments made without jurisdiction, were invalid under Chapter III of the Constitution, either by conferring incompatible jurisdiction on State courts or by being repugnant to federal judicial power. Finally, the Court considered whether to extend time for the applications for certiorari and whether such writs should issue to quash the Federal Court's orders.

The High Court reasoned that while the Federal Court's orders were made without jurisdiction and were therefore invalid, they were not nullities in the sense that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to determine, even erroneously, that it possessed jurisdiction under the purported Commonwealth law. The Court held that the State legislation, which created a fresh set of rights and liabilities by reference to these ineffective Federal Court orders without directly interfering with them, was valid. It found no inconsistency under section 109 of the Constitution because the Commonwealth Parliament could not legislate to make orders made without jurisdiction binding. Furthermore, the State Supreme Courts, when dealing with these matters under the State legislation, would be exercising federal jurisdiction conferred by the *Judiciary Act*, meaning their determinations would not create a section 109 inconsistency. The Court also determined that the definition of "ineffective judgment" in the State legislation encompassed judgments made without jurisdiction, regardless of whether they had been set aside.

The High Court ordered that time for the applications for writs of certiorari be extended and made the orders absolute, quashing the various winding-up orders and related decisions made by the Federal Court. Applications for writs of prohibition were dismissed, and costs were awarded to certain respondents.