Citation– [2017] HCA 21.

Jurisdiction – High Court , Australia

Topic – Validity of personal and subject matter jurisdiction of National Courts in Private International Law

Facts –

The ACCC took action against Air NZ in 2009 and Garuda in 2010 alleging they colluded with other airlines on charges for fuel, security, insurance surcharges, and a customs fee, for the carriage of air freight from origin ports in Hong Kong (both airlines), Singapore (Air NZ) and Indonesia (Garuda) to destination ports in Australia. Air NZ and Garuda had succeeded in their defence of the ACCC’s action in the Federal Court on the basis that they did not compete in a market in Australia.
The High Court found that price fixing agreements entered into between Air New Zealand Ltd, PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd, and other international airlines, breached Australia’s competition law. As the conduct occurred between 2002 and 2006, these proceedings were brought under the former Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA), which required that at least two parties to a price-fixing arrangement be in competition with each other in a market in Australia.
The key issue of contention was whether the conduct occurred in a market in Australia in which Air NZ and Garuda competed. Consistent with the decision of the Full Court, the High Court took an expansive view on what constitutes a market in Australia and, in this respect rejected the technical approach advocated by the airlines.

Issue – When do the courts posses jurisdiction in personam in Private International law.

Judgement –

No Australian court is of unlimited jurisdiction.
Courts can (not will) hear matters if they have personal jurisdiction (jurisdiction in personam) and subject matter jurisdiction.
Personal jurisdiction: amenability of a court to make orders binding a defendant.
It includes personal jurisdiction at common law, personal jurisdiction in interstate cases, personal jurisdiction in international cases.
Subject matter jurisdiction is the authority to decide actions of a particular subject matter.
In cases with a foreign element, court can lack subject matter jurisdiction in cases involving foreign immovables, foreign state immunity, etc.