Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15

Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15

A State Parliament cannot confer adjudicative authority in respect of matters listed in ss 75 and 76 of the Constitution on a tribunal that is not a 'court of a State'; either because Chapter III is exhaustive and precludes such conferral, or because s 39 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), supported by s 109 of the Constitution, renders invalid any State law purporting to confer jurisdiction with respect to such matters on non-court tribunals; thus, the relevant provisions of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) are invalid to the extent that they do so.

Parties
Appellant: Garry Burns; Respondent: Tess Corbett; Respondent: Bernard Gaynor; Appellant: Attorney General for New South Wales; Appellant: State of New South Wales; Intervener: Attorney-General of the Commonwealth; Intervener: Attorney-General of the State of Queensland; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia; Intervener: Attorney-General of the State of Tasmania; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Victoria
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment in the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Chapter III Courts, Judicial Power, Jurisdiction of State Tribunals, Diversity Jurisdiction, Inconsistency Between Commonwealth and State Laws
Constitutional Law Federal Jurisdiction Chapter III Courts Judicial Power Jurisdiction of State Tribunals Diversity Jurisdiction Inconsistency Between Commonwealth and State Laws

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Garry Burns

Appellant

Tess Corbett

Respondent

Bernard Gaynor

Respondent

Attorney General for New South Wales

Appellant

State of New South Wales

Appellant

Attorney-General of the Commonwealth

Intervener

Attorney-General of the State of Queensland

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia

Intervener

Attorney-General of the State of Tasmania

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Victoria

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment in the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a State Parliament can confer adjudicative authority in matters listed in ss 75 and 76 of the Constitution on a tribunal that is not a 'court of a State'
  2. 2 Whether such conferral is precluded by the implications of Chapter III of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) is inconsistent with the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39(2), by purporting to confer such jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

A State Parliament cannot confer adjudicative authority in respect of matters listed in ss 75 and 76 of the Constitution on a tribunal that is not a 'court of a State'; either because Chapter III is exhaustive and precludes such conferral, or because s 39 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), supported by s 109 of the Constitution, renders invalid any State law purporting to confer jurisdiction with respect to such matters on non-court tribunals; thus, the relevant provisions of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) are invalid to the extent that they do so.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • In S183/2017 and S185/2017, appellant to pay the first respondent's costs.
  • In S186/2017, S187/2017, and S188/2017, appellant to pay the second respondent's costs.