Attorney-General for the State of South Australia v Raschke

This case concerned an appeal by the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia against a decision of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT). The dispute arose from proceedings before SACAT concerning a residential tenancy agreement, where the question was whether SACAT was exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The Attorney-General accepted that if SACAT was exercising federal judicial power, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the respondent, Ms Firinauskas, was an interstate resident.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether SACAT, in making findings and orders on 14 May 2018, was exercising judicial power, and whether any review of such a determination would also involve the exercise of federal judicial power. This required the Court to classify the nature of the power exercised by SACAT in the context of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) and its own statutory framework.

The Court considered the President of SACAT's analysis, which noted that while many RTA claims are contractual disputes, the Act confers broad discretions on the Tribunal to ameliorate strict contractual rights, particularly for tenants. The President had regard to the Tribunal's obligation to decide disputes based on 'equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case'. Crucially, the President found that the mechanisms within the RTA that compel adherence to SACAT's outcomes possessed a sufficiently binding, final, and authoritative quality to be consistent with the exercise of judicial power. The President also considered whether SACAT constituted a "court" in the constitutional sense, noting it was not designated as such by its enabling Act, made a broad range of orders across various jurisdictions, and did not perform core executive functions. The Court ultimately determined that the power exercised by SACAT in this instance was indeed judicial power.