Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd v Page

The Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, considered a dispute between Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd and Ms Page. Ms Page had brought a claim in the Federal Court under section 5 of the *Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1967* (NSW) for death or injury arising from carriage by air entirely within New South Wales. The Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear this claim. Ms Page then commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales under section 11(2) of the *Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999* (NSW), but this claim was brought more than two years after the relevant aviation accident. Sydney Seaplanes sought to have Ms Page's Supreme Court claim dismissed.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether an order of the Federal Court dismissing a claim for want of jurisdiction constituted a "relevant order" within the meaning of section 11(1) of the *Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999* (NSW), and whether Ms Page's claim in the Supreme Court was extinguished by section 34 of the *Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959* (Cth). The Court also considered whether section 34 of the Commonwealth Act was a "limitation law" for the purposes of section 11(1) of the State Act, and whether the Supreme Court proceedings, by potentially allowing a claim otherwise out of time, undermined the purpose of section 34 of the Commonwealth Act.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the *Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999* (NSW) was enacted to remedy the effect of the High Court's decision in *Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally*, which had found that federal courts could not exercise state jurisdiction. The Court adopted a contextual approach to statutory interpretation, considering the legislative purpose and extrinsic materials. It concluded that the phrase "want of jurisdiction" in section 11(1) of the State Act should be interpreted broadly to include situations where the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction due to constitutional limitations, as was the case here. Furthermore, the Court distinguished between a law that bars a right of action and one that extinguishes it, holding that section 34 of the *Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959* (Cth) operates as an extinguishment of the right to damages, not merely a limitation period. Consequently, section 34 was not a "limitation law" as contemplated by section 11(1) of the State Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the primary judge and dismissing Ms Page's Summons.