Presumption in favour of international comity?

Some of the questions to the High Court (HCA) were as follows:

Question 1: Is it a common law precept "that (enemy aliens apart) any person who has standing to assert a claim within the jurisdiction of a court has a right to commence a proceeding in the court by filing an initiating process, irrespective of that person's nationality or place of residence"?

Question 2: Is it a common law precept "that (voluntary submission apart) service of initiating process on a person against whom the claim is asserted is a necessary foundation for the exercise of jurisdiction by the court to determine that claim against that person"?

Question 3: Is the common law presumption against extraterritorial operation more accurately labelled as a "presumption in favour of international comity"?

Question 4: Did the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court?

Question 5: Can it be said that "Federal courts, other than the High Court, owe their jurisdiction to laws enacted under s 77(i) of the Constitution"?

Question 6: Is a "matter" under the Constitution "a justiciable controversy identifiable independently of the proceeding brought for its determination and encompassing all claims made within the scope of the controversy"?

Question 7: Can it be said that: where the central focus of the subject matter of an enactment "is identified and it does not have a clear territorial connection (that is, it appears to be at large), the presumption will generally require that the hinge be construed as territorially limited, subject to a contrary intention"; where that central focus "has a territorial connection, it will ordinarily be unnecessary to look for further territorial restrictions"?

The HCA answered those questions as follows: