Burns v CorbettBurns v GaynorAttorney General for New South Wales v BurnsAttorney General for New South Wales v BurnsNew South Wales v BurnsCitation:[2018] HCA 15Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:18 Apr 2018Case Number:S183/2017, S185/2017, S186/2017, S187/2017, S188/2017Read more

Burns v CorbettBurns v GaynorAttorney General for New South Wales v BurnsAttorney General for New South Wales v BurnsNew South Wales v BurnsCitation:[2018] HCA 15Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:18 Apr 2018Case Number:S183/2017, S185/2017, S186/2017, S187/2017, S188/2017Read more

The NCAT, not being a court of a State, cannot be conferred jurisdiction to determine disputes between residents of different States, as such jurisdiction is reserved for courts under Chapter III of the Constitution. The relevant provisions of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) are inconsistent with the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

Parties
Applicant: Unknown Applicants; Respondent: Unknown Respondents
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Law / Judgment
Outcome
Relevant provisions of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) invalid to the extent of inconsistency with the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Legal Topics
Chapter III of the Constitution, State Judicial Power, Federal Jurisdiction, Inconsistency Between Commonwealth and State Laws
Constitutional Law Chapter III of the Constitution State Judicial Power Federal 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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown Applicants

Applicant

Unknown Respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Law / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Chapter III of the Constitution prevents conferring adjudicative authority on a non-court tribunal for matters between residents of different States
  2. 2 Whether the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) is inconsistent with the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The NCAT, not being a court of a State, cannot be conferred jurisdiction to determine disputes between residents of different States, as such jurisdiction is reserved for courts under Chapter III of the Constitution. The relevant provisions of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) are inconsistent with the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

Court Disposition

Relevant provisions of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) invalid to the extent of inconsistency with the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)