Bhattacharya v Attorney-General in and for the State of NSW

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales in a dispute between Dr. Bhattacharya and the Attorney-General for New South Wales. The core of the disagreement concerned the validity of certain provisions within the *Legal Profession Act 1987* (NSW) and the *Legal Profession Regulation 1994* (NSW), which Dr. Bhattacharya contended were invalidly enacted.

The central legal question before the High Court was whether the Governor of New South Wales had the constitutional authority to make regulations under the *Legal Profession Act 1987* (NSW) that were inconsistent with the Act itself. Specifically, the court had to determine if the impugned regulations, which dealt with the establishment and operation of the Legal Services Commissioner, were ultra vires the enabling legislation.

The High Court, in a joint judgment delivered by Hayne and Callinan JJ, found that the regulations were indeed invalid. Their Honours reasoned that the Governor's power to make regulations under section 251 of the *Legal Profession Act 1987* (NSW) was limited by the terms of the Act. Where the regulations purported to confer powers or impose obligations that were not contemplated or authorised by the Act, they were beyond the scope of the delegated legislative power and therefore invalid. The court affirmed the principle that subordinate legislation cannot override or contradict the primary legislation from which its authority is derived.