EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
STATUTORY RULES 1984 No. 406
Issued by the authority of the Justices of the High Court of Australia
AMENDMENTS TO THE HIGH COURT RULES
Order 72 Rule 7 sub-rules 5 and 6 govern the investment of moneys or funds paid into Court.
Sub-rule 5 provides:
[Withdrawal] Funds so paid into the Bank shall not be withdrawn or paid from the Bank otherwise than under the authority or order of the Court or a Justice, but the Bank may make a payment under an order signed by the Principal Registrar or a District Registrar, and countersigned by an officer or person nominated by a Law Officer of the Commonwealth, without enquiry whether such an order has been made.
Sub-rule 6 provides:
[Investment] The Court or a Justice may direct that any funds paid or to be paid into Court under an order shall be deposited at interest in the Bank, or invested at interest in stock or securities of the Government of the Commonwealth, in the names of the Principal Registrar, or of one of the District Registrars, and a person nominated by a Law Officer of the Commonwealth.
The persons nominated by the Law Officer of the Commonwealth was, the person for the time being occupying the office or performing the duties of Official Receiver in each of the Bankruptcy Districts of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Southern Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania respectively.
These sub-rules were made many years ago at a time when the Attorney-General’s Department provided the administrative services which enabled the Court to function. However, with the passage of the High Court of Australia Act 1979 the Court assumed responsibility for the administration of its affairs. It is no longer convenient or appropriate that an officer of the Attorney-General’s Department should be required to be involved in the investment and withdrawal of funds paid into the Court.
The Marshal’s Branch is responsible for the accounting functions in the Court’s administration. It is therefore appropriate that the Marshal be the designated person to countersign for the purposes of Order 72 Rule 7 sub-rules 5 and 6.
Overview
The Statutory Rules 1984 No. 406, issued by the authority of the Justices of the High Court of Australia, aim to update the High Court Rules by amending Order 72 Rule 7 sub-rules 5 and 6 concerning the investment of moneys or funds paid into the Court. Enacted to address the outdated administrative practices stemming from the time when the Attorney-General’s Department managed the Court's administrative functions, this amendment reflects the shift in responsibility to the Court itself following the High Court of Australia Act 1979. The policy objective is to streamline and modernise the processes for managing funds within the Court, ensuring that the Marshal’s Branch, responsible for accounting functions, now appropriately oversees the withdrawal and investment of these funds. This change aligns with the Court's current administrative structure, enhancing efficiency and appropriateness in the handling of financial matters.
Scope and Application
The amendments to the High Court Rules, specifically Order 72 Rule 7 sub-rules 5 and 6, govern the management of moneys or funds deposited into the Court. These rules apply to the High Court, a Justice of the Court, and the Marshal's Branch within the Court's administration. The scope of the Act is confined to the administration of funds within the Court’s jurisdiction, particularly in relation to their investment and withdrawal. The geographic reach of the Act is national, as it pertains to the High Court of Australia, which is the apex judicial body in the Australian federal system. The amendment reflects the shift in administrative responsibility from the Attorney-General’s Department to the Court itself, as established by the High Court of Australia Act 1979. The exclusion of the Law Officer of the Commonwealth from the process signifies a streamlining of the administrative processes within the Court, with the Marshal's Branch now assuming the role of countersigning for withdrawals and investments, thereby ensuring that only authorised personnel within the Court's administrative structure are involved in these financial transactions.
Key Provisions
The key operative sections of the Statutory Rules 1984 No. 406 are contained in Order 72 Rule 7, specifically sub-rules 5 and 6. Sub-rule 5 (Withdrawal) dictates that funds deposited into the Bank (presumably a financial institution) cannot be withdrawn or paid out without the authority or order of the Court or a Justice. However, the Bank may proceed with payments based on an order signed by the Principal Registrar or a District Registrar, countersigned by an officer nominated by a Law Officer of the Commonwealth, without verifying the order’s validity. Sub-rule 6 (Investment) allows the Court or a Justice to direct that funds be deposited at interest in the Bank or invested in Commonwealth Government stock or securities, with the investments being registered in the names of the Principal Registrar, a District Registrar, and a person nominated by a Law Officer of the Commonwealth.
The obligations imposed by these rules are primarily administrative and procedural. The Marshal’s Branch, responsible for accounting functions within the Court's administration, must ensure that any withdrawal of funds from the Court’s accounts is authorised by the Court or a Justice. Furthermore, the Marshal, as the designated person, must countersign any order permitting the withdrawal or investment of funds. This requirement ensures that the Marshal’s Branch maintains oversight and control over financial transactions involving Court funds, thereby enhancing accountability and transparency in the Court’s financial management.
There are no explicit offences or penalties detailed in the text of the Statutory Rules 1984 No. 406. However, the failure to comply with the specified procedures for withdrawing or investing funds could potentially lead to civil or administrative consequences. For example, improper or unauthorised withdrawals could result in financial mismanagement claims or disciplinary action against the responsible officials. While the rules themselves do not prescribe specific penalties, breaches of such administrative protocols could attract consequences under other applicable laws or internal Court regulations. The absence of detailed penalties in these rules underscores the importance of adherence to internal controls and oversight mechanisms within the Court’s administrative framework.