The consequence of this is that almost any defamatory comment made on the Internet and in the national press could be brought before the Federal Court.

In 1999, the High Court of Australia held in Spinks v Prentice, which was heard together with Re Wakim; ex parte McNally, that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear matters arising under the Corporations Law of the Australian Capital Territory, but not the separate corporations laws of the States.

[5] By the 2000s, the Federal Court began to hear cases arising under the Territory's common law, rather than statutes made for it.

The plaintiffs, campaign strategists Lynton Crosby and Mark Textor, brought the case in response to a tweet accusing the pair of "push polling" posted by the defendant, Dr Mike Kelly.

[7] Kelly was the Member for Eden-Monaro in the House of Representatives and a parliamentary secretary in the Gillard ministry at the time.

Perram J's judgment expanded on Robertson's points by constructing the Jurisdiction of Courts Act as a "surrogate" federal law which Territory matters can arise under for the purposes of Chapter III of the Constitution.

The Federal Court has a greater preference for written affidavits and submissions over oral evidence which may allow plaintiffs to control the conduct of the case.