Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)

In the matter concerning the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), the Full Court was presented with a case that required the interpretation of several provisions related to the administration of the court, including the division of opinion among judges, holding other judicial offices, and the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court. The central issue before the court was how to resolve a situation where the Full Court was equally divided in its opinion on a particular legal question.

The court addressed this issue by referring to the relevant provisions of the Act, which provide that if the judges are equally divided in opinion, the opinion of the most senior judge sitting shall prevail. The court also considered the implications of holding other judicial offices and the restrictions on resident judges or acting judges in terms of engaging in remunerative employment and accepting additional judicial appointments. Additionally, the court discussed the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court, including the administration of both law and equity.

The Full Court concluded that the opinion of the most senior judge should determine the outcome when there is an equal division of opinion. The court further outlined the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, emphasizing that it has all original and appellate jurisdiction necessary to administer justice in the Territory, as well as any jurisdiction conferred by Commonwealth Acts or Territory laws. The court also reiterated the principles of concurrent jurisdiction and the administration of law and equity.

The final orders of the court were that the opinion of the most senior judge should prevail in cases of equal division among the Full Court members, and that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and powers were to be exercised in accordance with the Act.