Other Federal Jurisdiction NPA logo with link NPA logo with link

About this NPA

The Other Federal Jurisdiction National Practice Area (NPA) encompasses cases that do not readily fit into any of the Court’s eight subject-matter NPAs.

Jurisdiction of the Court  

The jurisdiction of the Court is described in the About Us section of the website. See further, the Resources section below.

The relationship between the eight subject-matter NPAs and the Other Federal Jurisdiction NPA

The eight subject-matter NPAs do not exhaust the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia. They are the main bodies of work of the Court. Many other matters may, however, be brought in the Court that do not conveniently fit into these NPAs.

This NPA is designed to encompass cases that do not readily fit into any of the other existing NPAs. For instance, cases may arise under a law of the parliament (s 39B(1A)(c)) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) or otherwise in federal jurisdiction that is conferred on the Court such as cases that are in substance negligence claims for damages (such as under legislation governing civil aviation), or defamation, or cases involving the Court acting as a Court of disputed returns. This list is not by any means exhaustive. If the Court has jurisdiction but the matter does not fall within one of the eight NPAs, the matter will be managed within this NPA.

Allocation of matters in this NPA

Under this NPA, depending on the specialised nature of the subject matter, an allocation will be made under the existing protocols for allocation.

The Court will ensure that the judge allocated to manage a case falling within this NPA has particular expertise in the underlying areas of law in the subject of the proceeding.

Illustrative areas of law in this NPA

By way of illustration, some of the following types of claims are likely to fall within this NPA:

  • Negligence: such as a claim based in common law negligence against the operator of an offshore petroleum project, seeking compensation for losses caused by environmental damage.
  • Defamation: such as a matter concerning a story broadcast on television and an article published in print and online that was alleged to contain defamatory imputations.
  • Civil Aviation: such as a claim for damages (alleged assault) made against an airline company under Article 21(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air 1999 and s 9E of the Civil Aviation (Carrier’s Liability) Act 1959 (Cth).
  • Election-related disputes: such as a petition disputing the validity of an election or return - to be heard by the Federal Court as the ‘Court of Disputed Returns’, having such jurisdiction as referred by the High Court, under s 354 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth).

Latest Judgments

  • 10 Mar 2017: Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCA 238
    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay - application for stay of convictions and sentences for contempt of court and for release of contemnor from prison pending determination of appeal - costs - whether indemnity costs should be awarded
    Judge: Katzmann J
  • 27 Feb 2017: Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 2) [2017] FCA 202
    CONTEMPT OF COURT - sentencing - where respondent found guilty of four charges of breaching mandatory orders and two charges of bringing improper pressure on a party and party's lawyer - whether necessary to include in charge allegation of contumacious and wilful disobedience of court order - findings of acts of public defiance of a court order -…
    Judge: Rares J
  • 21 Dec 2016: Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal [2016] FCA 1598
    CONTEMPT OF COURT - where respondent fails to comply with mandatory order - onus of proof of respondent's ability to comply with orders - whether onus on applicant to negate or respondent to raise issue or rebut case that respondent failed to use or used best endeavours to comply with order CONTEMPT OF COURT - bringing improper pressure on party…
    Judge: Rares J
  • 19 Dec 2016: Adeang v The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2016] FCA 1599
    Judge: Rares J
  • 1 Nov 2016: Gregg v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2016] FCA 1470
    DEFAMATION - trial by jury - whether to be ordered - Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 39, 40 - whether limitations to power to order trial by jury under s 40 - whether "expedient" under s 40 to order trial by jury PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - where application for trial by jury filed out of time fixed in case management orders and without…
    Judge: Rares J
  • 10 Oct 2016: Adeang v The Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2016] FCA 1200
    DEFAMATION - Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 25, 26 - Federal Court Rules 2011 - requirements for pleadings pursuant to r 16.02 - pleading of imputations and contextual imputations - consideration of principles for pleading defamatory meaning - whether imputation of suspicion must identify the holder of that suspicion - consideration of principles…
    Judge: Rares J
  • 22 Jul 2015: Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 2) [2015] FCA 750
    DEFAMATION - remedies - whether permanent injunctions should be granted restraining respondents from publishing same or like imputations - whether Uniform Defamation Acts would require applicant to seek leave before suing on future publications - matters of principle relevant to consideration COSTS - indemnity costs - application of Defamation Act … 237 FCR 127
    Judge: White J
  • 30 Jun 2015: Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2015] FCA 652
    DEFAMATION - multiple publications - whether pleaded imputations conveyed - meaning of "corruption" - consideration of multiple related publications by large media organisations in various formats - whether newspaper headlines, posters, or tweets should be considered in isolation from related newspaper articles DEFAMATION - defences - qualified… 237 FCR 33; 332 ALR 257
    Judge: White J
  • 11 Dec 2013: Crosby v Kelly [2013] FCA 1343
    DEFAMATION - defences of justification, partial justification and contextual truth under ss 135, 136 of Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) - common law defences of justification and partial justification - defence of contextual truth under s 136 - whether general imputation can be "another imputation" pleaded under s 136 or at common law in answer…
    Judge: Rares J

Practice Notes

Due to the nature of this NPA, the Court, at this time, does not intend to issue a practice note. A practice note or further guiding information will be published on this website as and when needed.

However, parties should always be familiar with the guiding case management principles in the Central Practice Note (CPN-1).

To the extent relevant, parties should also be familiar with the general practice notes of the Court, including:

Forms, Rules & Fees

Due to the potentially broad range of actions relevant to this NPA it is impractical to provide an exhaustive list of forms and rules. However, below are some of the potentially relevant forms and rules for some proceedings commenced in this NPA:


Parties should consider whether it is necessary to file a Genuine Steps Statement (Form 16) in certain proceedings in this NPA – see r 8.02 of the Federal Court Rules and the Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 (Cth) (including sections 6, 7 and 16).

Filing fees for commencing a proceeding in this NPA may apply. Information about Court fees, including the fees payable and circumstances where an exemption or deferral can be given is available in Forms, Fees & Costs or from the Registry.


The following resources may be of assistance in the respect of the subject of the jurisdiction of the Federal Court:


To stay up-to-date with news in the Federal Court, including developments in this NPA, subscribe to our email subscription services.

We provide subscriptions for  Practice News and Daily Court Listings.

All Subscriptions