Precision Data Holdings Ltd & Ors v Wills

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.