Precision Data Holdings Ltd & Ors v Wills - [1991] HCATrans 271

"

• ,;" 1'
-~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Melbourne No M37 of 1991
B e t w e e n -
PRECISION DATA HOLDINGS LTD,
DABBY PTY LTD, TITAN HILLS
AUSTRALIA LTD, GODFREY CULLEN,
MAXWELL LATIMER and GARRY GRACO

Plaintiffs

and
DEAN WILLS, ROSS ADLER, PETER
JOOSTE (in their capacity as
Members of the Corporations and
Securities Panel), THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, THE
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES
COMMISSION and THE STATE OF
VICTORIA

Defendants

Case Stated pursuant to
section 18 of the Judiciary
Act 1903

MASON CJ
BRENNAN J

Precision

26/9/91

DEANE J
DAWSON J
TOOHEY J
GAUDRON J

McHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 1991, AT 10.17 AM

(Continued from 25/9/91)

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Solicitor.

MR GRIFFITH:

Your Honours, in our submission

Spratt v Hermes stands for two relevant

propositions. The first is that the source of
power to make laws for the government to the
Australian Capital Territory in section 122 is unqualified by section 52(i) and secondly, the legislative power conferred by section 122 enables
judicial power to be conferred on bodies created
independently of section 71 and section 72 of the
Constitution. It is our submission the decision
has stood for 25 years, bearing in mind its history
before then dating back, as Your Honour the
Chief Justice referred to yesterday, to Bernasconi
in 1915, and we submit to the Court that each of
the four matters referred to in John v The
Federal Commissioner of Taxation, 166 CLR 439-440,
militate against departure from these lines of
decisions. It was an unanimous decision of six
Justices of the Court and the decision of Spratt v
Hermes was reaffirmed by the unanimous decision of
seven Justices in the Capital TV and Appliances Pty
Ltd v Falconer case.
Its correctness has been repeatedly acted upon by Parliament and the legislatures for the
Territories established by the Parliament. In
particular, the whole system of inferior courts in
the Australian Capital Territory and other

Territories is built upon this proposition. We
submit it does not produce a result which is

manifestly inconvenient or unjust. The result is
to place the government of the Territories in much
the same position as the government of the States.
Spratt v Hermes was just an affirmation of a

consistent line of authority. The main authorities
were collected by His Honour Justice Gibbs in
Falconer at page 625 when he describes the

His Honour in essence is stating is that it is far principles as "well settled". We submit that what too late in the day now for these authorities to be
reconsidered. His Honour the Chief Justice in
Falconer, in reference to his judgment in Spratt v
Hermes said at page 598:
I then came to the conclusion after a close
examination of the decisions that, whatever I
might myself have thought if the slate were
clean, the doctrine of the duality of…

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 Precision Data Holdings Ltd & Ors v Wills

Details

AGLC: Precision Data Holdings Ltd & Ors v Wills [1991] HCATrans 271
Case: [1991] HCATrans 271
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a Case Stated to the High Court of Australia concerning the legislative and judicial powers of the Australian Capital Territory. The parties included Precision Data Holdings Ltd and others, as well as the Corporations and Securities Panel, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Australian Securities Commission, and the State of Victoria. The central dispute revolved around the validity of laws enacted for the government of the Australian Capital Territory, particularly those conferring judicial power on bodies established independently of Chapter III of the Constitution.

The High Court was required to determine whether the legislative power granted to the Commonwealth Parliament under section 122 of the Constitution, concerning the government of territories, was unqualified by section 52(i) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether this legislative power permitted the conferral of judicial power on bodies not constituted under sections 71 and 72 of the Constitution, and whether established authorities on this matter should be revisited.

The Court's reasoning heavily relied on precedent, specifically the decisions in *Spratt v Hermes* and *Bernasconi*. The Solicitor-General, representing the applicants, argued that *Spratt v Hermes* established two key propositions: that section 122's power is not limited by section 52(i), and that it allows for the conferral of judicial power on bodies outside of Chapter III. The Court noted that these propositions had stood for a significant period, had been repeatedly acted upon by Parliament and territorial legislatures, and formed the basis for the system of inferior courts in the Australian Capital Territory and other territories. The Court acknowledged that while individual Justices might have had differing views on the scope of these principles, the consistent line of authority, including unanimous decisions, indicated that it was too late to reconsider these established legal principles. The Court referred to the judgments of Mason CJ, Kitto J, Taylor J, Menzies J, and Windeyer J in *Spratt v Hermes*, and Gibbs J in *Falconer*, all of whom emphasised the entrenched nature of the doctrine and the need to accept it as established law.

Orders