Solomons v District Court of New South Wales

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Solomons against the District Court of New South Wales. Mr Solomons had been tried and acquitted in the District Court on an indictment charging offences under a law of the Commonwealth. He sought a certificate under the *Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967* (NSW) to enable him to apply for payment of his costs from the State's Consolidated Revenue Fund. The central dispute concerned whether the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) rendered the NSW Costs Act applicable to the District Court when exercising federal jurisdiction.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether sections 68 or 79 of the *Judiciary Act* operated to make the provisions of the NSW Costs Act applicable to a State court exercising federal jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court had to determine if such an application would be consistent with the Australian Constitution, particularly Chapter III concerning the exercise of judicial power, and whether it would impose non-judicial functions or burdens on State ministers, officers, and revenue.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the NSW Costs Act was not applicable to the District Court when exercising federal jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that section 79 of the *Judiciary Act*, which allows State laws to be binding on federal courts, is limited to cases where those laws are applicable and does not extend to provisions that impose non-judicial functions or are integral parts of a State legislative scheme that would be altered if severed. The Court found that the grant of a certificate under the NSW Costs Act was part of a State-established machinery for indemnifying litigants from a State fund, and that such a function could not be picked up by section 79 and imposed on a federal court without infringing constitutional requirements.

The appeal was dismissed, and Mr Solomons was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.