Rates Act 1929 (ACT)

The case involves a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Rates Ordinance 1926-1929 (ACT), specifically in relation to the power of the Governor-General to appoint a judge for the Valuation Court. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether the appointment of the judge for the Valuation Court under the Ordinance was in accordance with the requirements of section 71 of the Australian Constitution, which mandates that a judge of a federal court must be appointed by the Governor-General and hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General.

The Court examined the wording of the Ordinance and the process for appointing the judge. It found that the appointment of the judge was not explicitly made during the pleasure of the Governor-General, as required by the Constitution. The Court held that the Ordinance was inconsistent with the Constitution because it did not specify that the judge would hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Ordinance was invalid to the extent that it permitted the appointment of a judge not holding office during the pleasure of the Governor-General.

The Court's decision invalidated the Rates Ordinance 1926-1929 to the extent that it allowed for the appointment of a judge who did not hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. The Court's ruling underscored the importance of adhering to constitutional requirements for the appointment and tenure of federal judges.