High Court Registry closure

The High Court Registry will be closed from 4.00pm on Wednesday, 24 December 2025 and will re-open at 9:00am on Friday, 2 January 2026.

Any party seeking to file a document due to be filed between 25 December 2025 and 1 January 2026 has an automatic extension of time under the  High Court Rules 2004 (Rule 4.01.5) until 4:00pm on Friday, 2 January 2026 to file the document. Any documents lodged between 25 December 2025 and 1 January 2026 will be reviewed on 2 January 2026.

All inquiries for the High Court will be considered when the Registry re-opens on Friday, 2 January 2026.If a matter is of extreme urgency, you may telephone 1800 570 566, select Option 1 and leave a voicemail. In addition provide details by email to: registry@hcourt.gov.au.

Masson v Parsons

[2019] HCA 21
Judgment date
Case number
S6/2019
Before
Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Catchwords

Constitutional law (Cth) – Courts – Federal courts – Federal jurisdiction – Matter arising under Commonwealth law – Where Commonwealth law provides rules in respect of parentage of children born of artificial conception procedures – Where State law provides irrebuttable presumption that biological father of child conceived by fertilisation procedure is not father in specified circumstances – Whether s 79(1) of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) operates to pick up and apply text of State law as Commonwealth law – Whether State law regulates exercise of jurisdiction – Whether Commonwealth law has "otherwise provided" within meaning of s 79(1) of Judiciary Act – Whether tests for contrariety under s 79(1) of Judiciary Act and s 109 of Constitution identical – Whether State law applies of its own force in federal jurisdiction.

Family law – Parenting orders – Meaning of "parent" – Where Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) presumes best interests of child served by shared parental responsibility – Where s 60H of Family Law Act provides rules in respect of parentage of children born of artificial conception procedures – Where appellant provided semen to first respondent to conceive child with belief that he was fathering child – Where appellant had ongoing role in child's financial support, health, education and general welfare and enjoyed extremely close and secure attachment relationship with child – Where first respondent later in de facto relationship with second respondent – Where appellant found to be "parent" within ordinary meaning of word but not under s 60H – Whether s 60H exhaustive of persons who may qualify as "parent" of child born of artificial conception procedure – Whether "parent" used in Family Law Act according to ordinary meaning except as otherwise provided – Whether appellant is "parent" within ordinary meaning – Whether ordinary meaning of "parent" excludes "sperm donor" – Whether appellant is "sperm donor".

Words and phrases – "artificial conception procedure", "complete upon its face", "federal courts", "federal jurisdiction", "implicit negative proposition", "inconsistency", "irrebuttable presumption", "jurisdiction", "matter", "ordinary meaning", "otherwise provided", "parent", "parentage", "parenting orders", "picked up and applied", "power", "presumptions", "regulates the exercise of jurisdiction", "sperm donor", "State jurisdiction", "State legislative power", "status".

Constitution – s 109.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – ss 4, 60B, 60EA, 60G, 60H, 61D, 61DA.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – s 79(1).

Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) – Pt 3 Div 1.

Files
21.rtf (430.6 KB)
21.pdf (396.87 KB)