Burns v Corbett; Gaynor v Burns

In *Burns v Corbett; Gaynor v Burns*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered whether a State tribunal, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) and its successor, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), had the constitutional authority to determine complaints made under the *Anti-Discrimination Act 1977* (NSW). The dispute arose from complaints of discrimination made by Mr Burns against Ms Corbett and Mr Gaynor, which were heard and decided by these State tribunals. The central question was whether these tribunals, while exercising judicial power, were constitutionally permitted to adjudicate matters that could fall within the federal jurisdiction of the High Court under sections 75 and 76 of the Australian Constitution.

The Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. First, whether there was an implied limitation on the legislative power of a State to confer judicial power in respect of matters specified in sections 75 and 76 of the Constitution on a body that was not a Chapter III court. Second, whether a State law conferring such judicial power on a non-Chapter III court was inconsistent with section 39 of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth), which deals with the investment of federal jurisdiction in State courts.

The Court rejected the submission that there was an implied limitation on State legislative power to confer judicial power on non-Chapter III courts in relation to matters that could attract federal jurisdiction. However, it found that the State laws conferring such power on the ADT and NCAT were inconsistent with the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth). The reasoning was that the conditional investment of federal jurisdiction in State courts by the *Judiciary Act* was impaired or detracted from by the State law empowering a non-court body to exercise judicial power over the same subject matter. This inconsistency meant that the State tribunals lacked the constitutional authority to determine the complaints.

Consequently, in *Burns v Corbett*, the Court declared that the ADT and NCAT did not have jurisdiction to resolve the complaints, and the orders made by them were invalid and unenforceable. In *Gaynor v Burns*, the Court declared that NCAT was not authorised to decide the complaints made by Mr Burns concerning Mr Gaynor, and otherwise dismissed Mr Gaynor’s summons. Leave was granted for parties to seek costs orders.