reO'Reilly and Another [1983] HCA 27

reO'Reilly and Another [1983] HCA 27

The matter could be remitted to the Federal Court under s. 44 of the Judiciary Act 1903 Cth because the Federal Court had jurisdiction of a like kind under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 Cth over the administrative decision refusing sales tax registration. That decision was made under the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) and was not excluded by par. (e) of Sch. 1 to the ADJR Act. Upon remitter, s. 44 itself would invest the Federal Court with jurisdiction sufficient to grant appropriate relief, and the factual dispute was more appropriately determined there.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for a Writ of Mandamus Concerning Registration as a Wholesale Merchant for Sales Tax Purposes / Order Nisi Had Been Granted Ex Parte and Was Returnable Before the Full Court; Respondents Sought Remitter to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Order nisi vacated by consent and the whole matter remitted to the Federal Court of Australia.
Legal Topics
['writ of Mandamus' 'remitter From the High Court' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act Review' 'sales Tax Registration' 'federal Court Jurisdiction']
['administrative Law' 'taxation' 'federal Jurisdiction'] ['writ of Mandamus' 'remitter From the High Court' 'administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act Review' 'sales Tax Registration' 'federal Court Jurisdiction']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for a Writ of Mandamus Concerning Registration as a Wholesale Merchant for Sales Tax Purposes / Order Nisi Had Been Granted Ex Parte and Was Returnable Before the Full Court; Respondents Sought Remitter to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s. 44 of the Judiciary Act 1903 Cth empowered the High Court to remit the whole matter to the Federal Court of Australia.' 'Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction of a like kind with respect to the subject matter and parties, despite not independently having jurisdiction to order mandamus against an officer of the Commonwealth.' 'Whether the refusal or failure to register the prosecutor as a wholesale merchant was a decision of an administrative character under an enactment for the purposes of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 Cth.' 'Whether any such decision was excluded by par. (e) of Sch. 1 to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 Cth as a decision forming part of, or leading up to, assessments or calculations of tax or duty.' 'Whether the factual dispute about whether the prosecutor engaged in wholesale sales made the matter inappropriate for determination by the Full Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The matter could be remitted to the Federal Court under s. 44 of the Judiciary Act 1903 Cth because the Federal Court had jurisdiction of a like kind under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 Cth over the administrative decision refusing sales tax registration. That decision was made under the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) and was not excluded by par. (e) of Sch. 1 to the ADJR Act. Upon remitter, s. 44 itself would invest the Federal Court with jurisdiction sufficient to grant appropriate relief, and the factual dispute was more appropriately determined there.

Court Disposition

Order nisi vacated by consent and the whole matter remitted to the Federal Court of Australia.

Orders

  • ['Ordered by consent that the order nisi made on 27 July 1983 be vacated.' 'The whole of the matter be remitted to the Federal Court of Australia.' 'The matter proceed in the Federal Court as if the steps already taken in the High Court had been taken in that Court.' 'The costs of the action to the date of...