Taylor v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth

The parties in this matter were the plaintiff, represented by Mr R. Merkel, QC, and the defendant, the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, represented by the Solicitor-General, Mr S.P. Donaghue, QC. The dispute concerned whether the case should be heard by a single judge or referred directly to the Full Court of the High Court of Australia. Both parties indicated their preference for the matter to be heard by the Full Court, with the defendant acknowledging the potential for appeal from a single judge's decision and the plaintiff highlighting constitutional questions and the risk of appeal as reasons for a Full Court hearing.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate forum for hearing the case, specifically whether it should be decided by a single judge or referred to the Full Court. This decision was influenced by the parties' submissions regarding the strength and nature of the legal arguments, including the assertion of jurisdictional error based on the application of customary international law and the existence of constitutional questions. The court also considered the efficiency of the judicial process and the potential for appeals.

The court reasoned that referring the matter to the Full Court would be the most efficient use of judicial and party resources, particularly given the potential for constitutional questions and the likelihood of an appeal. The court granted leave for the parties to state a special case and ordered that this special case be referred to the Full Court for hearing. The court also made orders regarding costs, stating that costs would be costs in the cause, and directed the parties to consult with the Registrar regarding procedural matters such as the preparation of a joint book of authorities.