Trust Company of Australia Ltd v Skiwing Pty Ltd

The dispute in *Trust Company of Australia Ltd v Skiwing Pty Ltd* concerned the jurisdiction of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (NSW) to hear claims brought under the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth). The primary issue before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was whether the Tribunal, as constituted, was a "court of a State" for the purposes of section 77(iii) of the Commonwealth Constitution, which would permit the vesting of federal jurisdiction in it.

The court was required to determine whether the Administrative Decisions Tribunal possessed the power to adjudicate claims arising under the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth), specifically in light of the constitutional limitations on vesting federal jurisdiction in state tribunals. This involved considering whether the Tribunal qualified as a "court" or a "court of a State" within the meaning of section 77(iii) of the Commonwealth Constitution, and consequently, whether it could validly exercise federal jurisdiction conferred by section 86(2) of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth).

The Court of Appeal, with Spigelman CJ, Hodgson JA, and Bryson JA presiding, allowed the appeal. The court reasoned that the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, in its ordinary constitution, was not a "court of a State" as contemplated by section 77(iii) of the Commonwealth Constitution. Consequently, it lacked the constitutional capacity to be invested with federal jurisdiction to hear claims under the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth). The court distinguished the Tribunal from a court by reference to its composition and the nature of its functions, concluding that it did not meet the criteria for being a judicial body capable of exercising federal judicial power.

The court ordered that the appeal be allowed, setting aside the orders of the Appeal Panel. The respondent's appeals to the Appeal Panel from the Tribunal's decisions regarding its lack of jurisdiction to hear the *Trade Practices Act* claims and the dismissal of the claim under section 34 of the *Retail Leases Act* were dismissed. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.