Kruger v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 27

Kruger v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 27

The power conferred by s 122 of the Constitution is not limited, in the context pleaded, by the implied rights or freedoms for which the plaintiffs contended, nor by a general guarantee of equality or due process, nor (on the facts and pleadings) by s 116; the impugned Ordinances and Acts were within power and not invalid on constitutional grounds so far as advanced. Consequently, constitutional breach does not give rise to an independent cause of action for damages against the Commonwealth.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Law Cases Regarding Validity of Statutes and Damages Claims / Full Court Hearing of Reserved Questions of Law Prior to Factual Trial
Outcome
The questions reserved were largely answered 'No'—the impugned power and laws were not so restricted or invalid; damages do not lie for breach of constitutional rights; accordingly, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the Commonwealth's costs of the reserved questions.
Legal Topics
['scope of S 122 of the Constitution' 'implied Freedoms Under the Constitution' 'legal Equality' 'freedom of Movement and Association' 'separation of Powers Under Ch Iii' 'application of S 116 (religion) to Territories' 'genocide and International Law' 'damages for Constitutional Breaches' 'limitation of Actions' 'validity of Northern Territory Administration Legislation']
['constitutional Law' 'administrative Law' 'human Rights Law'] ['scope of S 122 of the Constitution' 'implied Freedoms Under the Constitution' 'legal Equality' 'freedom of Movement and Association' 'separation of Powers Under Ch Iii' 'application of S 116 (religion) to Territories' 'genocide and International Law' 'damages for Constitutional Breaches' 'limitation of Actions' 'validity of Northern Territory Administration Legislation']

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

Constitutional Law Cases Regarding Validity of Statutes and Damages Claims / Full Court Hearing of Reserved Questions of Law Prior to Factual Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the legislative power under s 122 of the Constitution is restricted by rights, guarantees, immunities, freedoms, or provisions as pleaded, so as to invalidate the Ordinances and Acts challenged' 'Whether breach of any such constitutional right gives rise to an action for damages against the Commonwealth distinct from tort or contract' 'Whether the impugned Ordinances and Acts authorized the crime of genocide or breaches of international law incorporated into constitutional limits' 'Whether s 116 (free exercise of religion) and Ch III requirements (separation of powers/judicial power) limit s 122' 'Effect and role of implied legal equality and implied freedoms (movement, association, political communication) on s 122 powers']

Ratio Decidendi

The power conferred by s 122 of the Constitution is not limited, in the context pleaded, by the implied rights or freedoms for which the plaintiffs contended, nor by a general guarantee of equality or due process, nor (on the facts and pleadings) by s 116; the impugned Ordinances and Acts were within power and not invalid on constitutional grounds so far as advanced. Consequently, constitutional breach does not give rise to an independent cause of action for damages against the Commonwealth.

Court Disposition

The questions reserved were largely answered 'No'—the impugned power and laws were not so restricted or invalid; damages do not lie for breach of constitutional rights; accordingly, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the Commonwealth's costs of the reserved questions.

Orders

  • ["Reserved questions 1 and 2 answered 'No' (or as indicated in some individual judgments, with qualifications or as unnecessary)" 'Further reserved questions not reached/answered on grounds of the main answers' "Plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendant's costs"]