The High Court's decision in Burns v Corbett The effect of Burns v - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
the high court s decision in burns v corbett the effect
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The High Court's decision in Burns v Corbett The effect of Burns v - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 15, 2023 371 likes •650 views

Dr Anna Olijnyk The High Court's decision in Burns v Corbett The effect of Burns v Corbett Which tribunals are affected? State tribunals that exercise judicial power and that are not courts . What is the effect? A State tribunal

slide-1
SLIDE 1

The High Court's decision in Burns v Corbett

Dr Anna Olijnyk

slide-2
SLIDE 2

The effect of Burns v Corbett

  • Which tribunals are affected?

–State tribunals that exercise judicial power and that are not courts.

  • What is the effect?

–A State tribunal that is not a court cannot exercise judicial power in matters of the kinds identified in ss 75 and 76 of the Constitution.

University of Adelaide 2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Are Territory tribunals affected?

  • First possibility:

–All Territory judicial power is federal judicial power. –Therefore non-judicial Territory tribunals cannot exercise judicial power. –Therefore Burns v Corbett does not affect Territory tribunals.

  • Second possibility:

–Territory tribunals were not considered in Burns v Corbett. –Territory tribunals may be in some special, different position.

University of Adelaide 3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Are Territory tribunals affected?

  • Third possibility:

–Territory tribunals can exercise judicial power. –Burns v Corbett applies to Territory tribunals in the same way as to State tribunals. –This is because Burns v Corbett establishes that judicial power in ss 75/76 matters cannot be exercised by any non-judicial body.

University of Adelaide 4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Some terminology

  • Federal jurisdiction = the authority to decide conferred

by the Constitution or by Commonwealth laws.

  • State jurisdiction = the authority to decide conferred by

State laws.

  • ‘Federal matters’ = matters of the kinds identified in ss

75 and 76, irrespective of the source of jurisdiction.

  • ‘Non-judicial tribunal’ = a tribunal that is not a court.

University of Adelaide 5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

The effect of Burns v Corbett

  • A State tribunal that is not a court cannot exercise

judicial power in ‘federal matters’.

  • Technical elements:

–‘Federal matters’ –Judicial power –Not a court

University of Adelaide 6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

‘Federal matters’

University of Adelaide 7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Constitution s 75

In all matters

(i.) Arising under any treaty: (ii.) Affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries: (iii.) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued

  • n behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:

(iv.) Between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State: (v.) In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth:

the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.

University of Adelaide 8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Constitution s 76

The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter

(i.) Arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation: (ii.) Arising under any laws made by the Parliament: (iii.) Of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction: (iv.) Relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws of different States.

University of Adelaide 9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Section 75(iv)

Matters … between residents of different States…

  • Eg Burns v Corbett
  • Note: a corporation is not a ‘resident’ of a State:

Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Howe (1922) 31 CLR 290.

University of Adelaide 10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Section 76(ii)

Matters arising under any laws made by the Parliament

  • Qantas Airways Ltd v Lustig (2015) 228 FCR 148

University of Adelaide 11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Section 75(iii)

Matters in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party

  • Commonwealth v Anti-Discrimination Tribunal (2008)

169 FCR 85

University of Adelaide 12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Section 76(i)

Matters arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation

  • Owen v Menzies [2013] 2 Qd R 327
  • Sunol v Collier (2012) 81 NSWLR 619

University of Adelaide 13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Judicial power

University of Adelaide 14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330

  • Griffith CJ at 357:

[T]he words ‘judicial power’ as used in sec 71 of the Constitution mean the power which every sovereign authority must of necessity have to decide controversies between its subjects, or between itself and its subjects, whether the rights relate to life, liberty or property. The exercise of this power does not begin until some tribunal which has power to give a binding and authoritative decision (whether subject to appeal or not) is called upon to take action.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Tribunals and judicial power

  • Many powers conferred on tribunals are ‘chameleon

powers’.

  • Enforcement mechanism whereby tribunal orders are

registered in a court may indicate judicial power: see Brandy v HREOC (1995) 183 CLR 245.

  • A recent case: Zistis v Zistis [2018] NSWSC 722.

University of Adelaide 16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Courts

University of Adelaide 17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Some non-exhaustive relevant factors

  • Whether the body is designated as a ‘court of record’
  • Whether it is constituted by judges (and the related

question of how the independence and impartiality of its members are protected)

  • Whether it exercises judicial power
  • Whether it has powers commonly possessed by courts

Compare Johnson v Dibbin [2018] NSWCATAP 45 and Zistis v Zistis [2018] NSWSC 722

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Options for State tribunals after Burns v Corbett

University of Adelaide 19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Option 1: Business as usual

  • State non-judicial tribunals can continue exercising

judicial power, but will lack jurisdiction in ‘federal matters’.

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Option 2: Express exception to jurisdiction

  • Legislation conferring jurisdiction on a tribunal could

carve out an exception for ‘federal matters’.

University of Adelaide 21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Option 3: No judicial power for tribunals

University of Adelaide 22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Option 4: Tribunals become courts

  • Every State court is vested with federal jurisdiction:

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39.

  • State courts are subject to the principle from Kable v

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51.

University of Adelaide 23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Option 5: Federal matters to be referred to a State court

  • A State non-judicial tribunal could continue to exercise

judicial power.

  • Any federal matters that came before the tribunal could

be referred to a State court.

University of Adelaide 24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Option 6: Exception to judicial power

  • A non-judicial tribunal may continue to exercise judicial

power, except in federal matters.

  • In federal matters, the tribunal exercises only non-

judicial power.

University of Adelaide 25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Option 7: Hybrid tribunal

  • A tribunal could have a judicial and a non-judicial

section.

  • See, eg, the former New South Wales Industrial

Commission/Industrial Court of New South Wales; and the South Australian Employment Tribunal.

  • The non-judicial section could exercise judicial power.
  • Federal matters would be determined by the judicial

section.

  • Part-heard federal matters in the non-judicial section

could be transferred to the judicial section.

University of Adelaide 26