Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Tucker v McKee [2022] FCAFC 98 Appeal from: Tucker v McKee [2021] FCA 828
File number(s): VID 449 of 2021
Judgment of: ALLSOP CJ, KENNY AND JAGOT JJ
Date of judgment: 3 June 2022
Catchwords: HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – federal jurisdiction – defamation – alleged defamatory imputations in email from first respondent to employees of second respondent – whether pleadings disclose matter within federal jurisdiction – whether respondents' pleading of common law defence of qualified privilege based in part on legal duty or interest by reference to an enterprise agreement was sufficient to enliven jurisdiction under s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – where enterprise agreement made under and enforceable by Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether appellant's pleaded defamatory imputations relying upon enterprise agreement and Fair Work Act "colourable" or "unarguable": Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn [2022] HCA 16 applied – whether such imputations sufficient to enliven federal jurisdiction – held: appeal allowed
Legislation: Constitution s 76(ii) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 50, 172, 570 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 32 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 39, 39B(1A)(c) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 9(3)
Cases cited: Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 5; 218 CLR 366 Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [1987] FCA 686; 18 FCR 212 Cadet v Stephens (unreported, Windeyer J, Brisbane 21 June 1966) CGU Insurance Ltd v Blakeley [2016] HCA 2; 259 CLR 339 Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn [2022] HCA 16 Crosby v Kelly [2012] FCAFC 96; 203 FCR 451 Dzikowsky v Mazgay (unreported, Windeyer J, Sydney 7 July 1966) Felton v Mulligan [1971] HCA 39; 124 CLR 367 LNC Industries Ltd v BMW (Australia) Ltd [1983] HCA 31; 151 CLR 575 Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd [1980] HCA 32; 145 CLR 457 National Australia Bank Ltd v Nautilus Insurance Pte Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1543; 377 ALR 627 Northern Territory v GPAO [1999] HCA 8; 196 CLR 553 Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte [1938] HCA 7; 59 CLR 369 R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration: Ex parte Barrett [1945] HCA 50; 70 CLR 141 Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton [2009] HCA 16; 238 CLR 460 Raghubir v Nicolopoulos [2022] FCAFC 97 Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCAFC 156; 254 FCR 1 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally [1999] HCA 27; 198 CLR 511 Ridd v James Cook University [2021] HCA 32; 394 ALR 12 Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 Cr M & R 181 Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd v Marmara [2014] FCAFC 84; 222 FCR 152 Tucker v Broderick [2021] FCA 1492 Tucker v McKee [2021] FCA 828 Tucker v State of Victoria [2019] VSC 420 Tucker v State of Victoria [2021] VSCA 120
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate