Le Mesurier v Connor

The case of *Le Mesurier v Connor* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Bankruptcy in Western Australia. The appellant, Le Mesurier, sought to set aside a bankruptcy notice served upon him by the respondent, Connor. The grounds for setting aside the notice included irregularities in the appointment of the Registrar in Bankruptcy who issued the notice, and the purported delegation of judicial power to the Registrar. The validity of various provisions of the *Bankruptcy Act 1924-1928* and their constitutional basis were central to the dispute.

The High Court was required to determine several significant legal issues. These included whether the Parliament had the constitutional power, under section 77(III) of the Constitution, to authorise the Governor-General to empower State Courts to exercise bankruptcy jurisdiction. The Court also considered whether section 51(XVII) of the Constitution, relating to bankruptcy and insolvency, provided sufficient authority for such provisions. Further questions arose regarding the validity of provisions that purported to grant State Courts jurisdiction throughout the Commonwealth, the constitutional validity of making a Federal officer an officer of a State Court and subjecting them to the directions of the Commonwealth Attorney-General, and whether the power to issue bankruptcy notices could be validly delegated to a Registrar.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Knox C.J., Rich and Dixon JJ., held that section 77(III) of the Constitution does not permit the Parliament to make a Commonwealth officer a functionary of a State Court and authorise them to administer part of its jurisdiction. They found that while section 51(XXXIX) confers power regarding matters incidental to the execution of Federal judicial power, it does not extend to regulating the organisation of State Courts. The Court further held that section 18(1)(b) of the *Bankruptcy Act 1924-1928*, which purports to confer upon the Executive Government a discretionary power to authorise State Courts to exercise Federal jurisdiction, was not a valid "law investing" Federal jurisdiction under section 77(III) and was therefore ultra vires and void. Consequently, sections 12(5), 23 and 24 of the *Bankruptcy Act* were also deemed to be ultra vires and void.

The appeal was allowed, and the bankruptcy notice was set aside. The majority found that the provisions of the *Bankruptcy Act* that purported to integrate Federal officers into the organisation of State Courts and to delegate judicial functions to Registrars were beyond the constitutional power of the Commonwealth Parliament.