SHUTTLEWORTH and PEARSON

The case involved Shuttleworth and Pearson, who were residents of Queensland, bringing a complaint against a building service provider under the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA). The primary dispute was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the complaint under section 75(iv) of the Australian Constitution, which allows for matters between residents of different States to be heard in the Federal Court.

The legal issues at hand were whether the Building Services Act constituted a matter between residents of different States, given that the complainants were from Queensland and the service provider was based in Western Australia. This required the court to interpret the meaning of "matter" under section 75(iv) of the Constitution and whether the act of filing a complaint under the Building Services Act constituted a sufficient matter to confer Federal Court jurisdiction.

The court examined the legislative intent behind the Building Services Act and found that the act was designed to facilitate dispute resolution between consumers and service providers across states. The court reasoned that the act's provisions for cross-state complaints inherently created a matter between residents of different States. This was sufficient to establish the necessary jurisdictional criteria under section 75(iv). Therefore, the court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint brought by Shuttleworth and Pearson.

In summary, the court determined that the Building Services Act 2011 (WA) provided a matter between residents of different States, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Federal Court under section 75(iv) of the Australian Constitution. The court's decision allowed the complaint to proceed in the Federal Court, affirming its authority to handle such cross-state disputes.