Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Australia) Limited & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors; Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Limited; Carson v Slee

The proceedings before the High Court of Australia involved multiple parties and related disputes. In one set of proceedings, Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Australia) Limited and others were plaintiffs, suing the Commonwealth of Australia and others as defendants. In separate but related matters, Nicholas Roderick Carson was the plaintiff against John Fairfax & Sons Limited, and also against John Slee and John Fairfax & Sons Limited. The core of the dispute, as indicated by the submissions, concerned rights of appeal to the High Court and whether these rights could be abrogated by legislation, particularly in light of section 73 of the Constitution.

The central legal issue before the Court was the competency of appeals to the High Court. Specifically, the plaintiffs in the Smith Kline matter asserted a constitutional right of appeal, arguing that such a right could only be removed by an exception provided for in section 73 of the Constitution. This raised questions about the scope of the High Court's appellate jurisdiction and the legislative power to limit it. The objections to competency suggest that the defendants were challenging the very right of the plaintiffs to bring these appeals before the Court.

The submissions of counsel, particularly Mr. Ellicott for the plaintiffs in the Smith Kline matter, indicated that the argument would centre on the constitutional basis of appellate rights. The plaintiffs contended that their right of appeal was a fundamental aspect of their access to the High Court, protected by the Constitution, and could not be unilaterally extinguished by legislative action unless it fell within a constitutionally permissible exception. The Court was therefore required to interpret section 73 of the Constitution and its implications for legislative attempts to restrict or remove appellate jurisdiction.