H A Bachrach Pty Ltd v The State of Queensland (B16-1997) [1998] HCA 54 2 September 1998
ORDER
Demurrers by the first and third defendants allowed.
Judgment for the defendants with costs.
Representation:
E J P F Lennon QC with R M Derrington and G F Carney for the plaintiff (instructed by Phillips Fox)
P A Keane QC, Solicitor-General for the State of Queensland with R W Campbell and G R Cooper for the first defendant (instructed by Crown Solicitor for Queensland)
No appearance for the second defendant
J C Sheahan SC with J D McKenna for the third defendant (instructed by Minter Ellison)
2.
Interveners:
B M Selway QC, Solicitor-General for the State of South Australia with L K Byers (instructed by Crown Solicitor for South Australia) intervening in support of the first defendant.
L S Katz SC, Solicitor-General for the State of New South Wales with N Hopkins appearing on behalf of the Attorney-General for Victoria (instructed by Victorian Government Solicitor) intervening in support of the defendants.
L S Katz SC, Solicitor-General for the State of New South Wales with S Gageler (instructed by Crown Solicitor for New South Wales) intervening in support of the defendants.
Notice: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
H A Bachrach Pty Ltd v The State of Queensland & Ors
Constitutional law – Restrictions on Commonwealth and State legislation imposed by Constitution, Ch III – Judicial power – Whether Local Government (Morayfield Shopping Centre) Act 1996 (Q) interferes with the exercise of judicial power or judicial process of the Supreme Court of Queensland, contrary to requirements of Ch III.
The Constitution, Ch III. Local Government (Morayfield Shopping Centre)Act 1996 (Q). Local Government (Planning and Environment)Act 1990 (Q).
GLEESON CJ, GAUDRON, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND HAYNE JJ. This action was commenced in the original jurisdiction of this Court on the basis that it is a matter arising under or involving the interpretation of the Constitution within the meaning of s 30(a) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The plaintiff seeks a declaration that an Act of the Queensland legislature is invalid. There are three defendants. The first and third defendants have demurred to the Statement of Claim. The second defendant submits. The demurrers are before the Court for determination.
The plaintiff owns land in the Shire of Caboolture on which there is a shopping centre. The third defendant, Keylim Pty Ltd, ("Keylim") wished to build a shopping centre on land at Morayfield in the same shire. That necessitated rezoning. The second defendant, the Caboolture Shire Council, approved such rezoning. The plaintiff appealed unsuccessfully to the Planning and Environment Court. Before the plaintiff could pursue a further appeal to the Court of Appeal…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading H A Bachrach Pty Ltd v Queensland
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
H A Bachrach Pty Ltd v Queensland [1998] HCA 54
Case
[1998] HCA 54
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered a constitutional challenge brought by H A Bachrach Pty Ltd against the State of Queensland and other defendants. The dispute concerned the validity of the *Local Government (Morayfield Shopping Centre) Act 1996* (Qld) and whether it impermissibly interfered with the judicial power of the Supreme Court of Queensland, contrary to Chapter III of the Australian Constitution.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Queensland Act, by its terms or effect, encroached upon the exclusive judicial power vested in the courts by Chapter III of the Constitution. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Act purported to exercise judicial power or otherwise interfered with the judicial process of the Supreme Court in a manner that was constitutionally impermissible.
The Court allowed the demurrers filed by the first and third defendants. In its reasoning, the Court found that the Act did not, in substance, usurp or interfere with the judicial power of the Supreme Court. The demurrers were upheld, leading to judgment being entered for the defendants with costs awarded in their favour.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Demurrers by the first and third defendants allowed.
2.
Judgment for the defendants with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
GLEESON CJ, GAUDRON, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND HAYNE JJ
CJ, GAUDRON, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND HAYNE JJ
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by:
GLEESON CJ, GAUDRON, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND HAYNE JJ,
CJ, GAUDRON, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND HAYNE JJ