Austin v The Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 3

Austin v The Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 3

The federal legislation imposing superannuation contributions surcharge upon State judges is invalid in its application to serving State judicial officers (here, the first plaintiff), because it places a particular disability or burden upon the operations and activities of the State (specifically, New South Wales), interfering with State arrangements for judicial remuneration and impairing State governmental functions, and thus exceeds the legislative power of the Commonwealth under the Constitution.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Robert Peter Austin; Second Plaintiff: Kathryn Kings; Defendant: The Commonwealth of Australia; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of South Australia; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Victoria
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Stated Case / Full Court Decision
Outcome
Legislation invalid in its application to the first plaintiff; defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs.
Legal Topics
Legislative Power of Commonwealth, Federalism, Implied Limitation, Superannuation, Taxation, Statutory Interpretation, Discrimination, Judicial Pensions
Constitutional Law Taxation Law Legislative Power of Commonwealth Federalism Implied Limitation Superannuation Taxation Statutory Interpretation +2 more

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 36 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Peter Austin

First Plaintiff

Kathryn Kings

Second Plaintiff

The Commonwealth of Australia

Defendant

Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of South Australia

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Victoria

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Stated Case / Full Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Imposition Act 1997 (Cth) and the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Act 1997 (Cth) valid in their application to State judges under the federal Constitution?
  2. 2 Do the Acts make the plaintiffs liable for the superannuation contributions surcharge for specified years?
  3. 3 Does the legislation impose impermissible discrimination or burden on the operations and activities of a State?

Ratio Decidendi

The federal legislation imposing superannuation contributions surcharge upon State judges is invalid in its application to serving State judicial officers (here, the first plaintiff), because it places a particular disability or burden upon the operations and activities of the State (specifically, New South Wales), interfering with State arrangements for judicial remuneration and impairing State governmental functions, and thus exceeds the legislative power of the Commonwealth under the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Legislation invalid in its application to the first plaintiff; defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs.

Orders

  • Answer to Question 1(a): Yes (first plaintiff liable for specified years).
  • Answer to Question 1(b): No (second plaintiff not liable for specified years).