State of New South Wales v Malek Fahd Islamic School Limited (No 2)

In the case between the State of New South Wales and Malek Fahd Islamic School Limited (No 2), the primary concern was the application by the State for a declaration that the school's operations were unlawful due to alleged breaches of the Education Act 1990. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The school contested the State's claims, arguing that its operations were lawful and that the State's application was premature, given that the school had applied for registration as a school under the Education Act.

The court was tasked with determining whether it should order a separate determination of a specific issue said to be a jurisdictional fact, separate from the rest of the proceedings. The school argued that there was an overlap in the evidence required to resolve this issue and the other issues in the proceedings, which could lead to a reduction in court time if the issue were dealt with separately. The State opposed the separate determination, asserting that it would not save time and that the matter should be resolved within the context of the broader proceedings.

The court held that the issue of whether the school was a registered school under the Education Act was indeed a jurisdictional fact that should be determined separately from the rest of the proceedings. The court reasoned that the evidence required to resolve this issue was distinct from the evidence required for the other issues and that a separate determination would likely expedite the proceedings. The court was persuaded that dealing with the jurisdictional issue first would clarify the scope of the proceedings and potentially avoid unnecessary arguments on other issues. Consequently, the court ordered that the jurisdictional issue be determined separately from the rest of the proceedings.

The court's final order was that the matter concerning the school's registration status under the Education Act would be heard and determined separately from the rest of the proceedings. This decision was made in the interest of efficiency and clarity, ensuring that the jurisdictional issue was resolved promptly, allowing for a more focused and timely resolution of the remaining matters in dispute.