Artboard 1Icon/UI/CalendarIcons/Ionic/Social/social-pinterestIcon/UI/Video-outline

NSW Government Bulletin - 2 May 2018

02 May 2018

17 min read

#Government

Published by:

Eleanor Grounds

NSW Government Bulletin - 2 May 2018

Burns v Corbett; Burns v Gaynor [2018] HCA 15

On 18 April 2018 the High Court handed down its much anticipated decision in Burns v Corbett; Burns v Gaynor [2018] HCA 15, which we previewed in our Summer Government Bulletin article. The Court unanimously dismissed five appeals from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal), finding that the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) does not have the jurisdiction to deal with a dispute arising between two residents of different states. 

Facts

Mr Burns, a resident of New South Wales, complained to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board about remarks made by Ms Corbett, a Victorian resident, and Mr Gaynor, a Queensland resident, which Mr Burns argued were public acts vilifying homosexuals in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). 

When the former Administrative Decisions Tribunal (now the Tribunal) ordered Ms Corbett to make a public and private apology and Ms Corbett subsequently refused to do so, Mr Burns commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW for contempt of court. Ms Corbett argued the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to order her to apologise because, at all relevant times, she was a resident of Victoria, not New South Wales. This aspect of her defence was removed to the Court of Appeal. 

Mr Burns’ complaint against Mr Gaynor was referred to but dismissed by the Tribunal. Mr Burns appealed to the Tribunal’s appeal panel, but before the appeal was heard an interlocutory costs order was made against Mr Gaynor. Mr Gaynor subsequently obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, likewise arguing that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine matters involving residents of a state other than New South Wales. 

Relevant legislation 

Section 39(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) (Judiciary Act) provides, relevantly, that courts which are “Courts of the State” under Chapter III of the Constitution have federal jurisdiction in all matters in which the High Court has original jurisdiction.  

Pursuant to section 75(iv) of the Constitution, the High Court has original jurisdiction in all matters “between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State” (federal diversity jurisdiction). 

Furthermore, section 76 of the Constitution empowers the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws conferring additional original jurisdiction on the High Court to determine certain other matters. Section 77 gives the Parliament the power to make laws defining the jurisdiction of any federal court other than the High Court, defining the extent to which the jurisdiction of any federal court shall be exclusive of that which belongs to or is invested in the courts of the States, and investing State courts with federal jurisdiction.

Court of Appeal decision 

The Court of Appeal dealt with the appeals by Ms Corbett and Mr Gaynor together. It is relevant to note that it was common ground in the Court of Appeal matter that the Tribunal was not a Court of a State. The Court held: 

A state tribunal which is not a “Court of a State” is unable to exercise judicial power to determine matters between residents of two states, because the state law which purports to authorise the tribunal to do so is inconsistent with the conditional investment by s.39(2) of the Judiciary Act (when read with s 39A) of all such jurisdiction in state courts.

High Court decision 

Five separate appeals (variously commenced by Mr Burns, the state of New South Wales and the Attorney-General of New South Wales) were made to the High Court, with the Attorneys-General of Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and Victoria intervening. The Full Court of the High Court heard the appeals together. The Commonwealth Attorney-General filed a notice of contention advancing two arguments:

1. That the Constitution precludes a state parliament from conferring federal diversity jurisdiction on a tribunal which is not a Court of a State; and 

2. In the alternative, a state law which purports to confer federal diversity jurisdiction on a tribunal is inconsistent with section 39(2) of the Judiciary Act and therefore invalid by operation of section 109 of the Constitution. 

The High Court unanimously dismissed all five appeals, finding that the Constitution precludes a state parliament from conferring federal diversity jurisdiction on a tribunal. Such a provision would be inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid. As such, the Tribunal cannot exercise federal diversity jurisdiction. 

The majority of the High Court (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ, with Gagelar J concurring generally) found:

Sections 28(2)(a) and (c), 29(1) and 32 of the NCAT Act are invalid to the extent that they purport to confer jurisdiction upon [the Tribunal] in relation to the matters between Mr Burns, and Ms Corbett and Mr Gaynor. Pursuant to s.31 of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) they may be read down to avoid that conclusion so that they do not confer jurisdiction upon [the Tribunal] where the complainant and the respondent to the complaint are "residents of different States" within the meaning of s.75(iv) of the Constitution.

Furthermore, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ agreed with the Attorney-General’s alternative argument, holding that the Tribunal is prohibited from resolving a dispute between residents of different states as this would amount to an inconsistency with section 39(2) of the Judiciary Act.  

As in the Court of Appeal, it was an agreed fact that the Tribunal is not a Court of a State. The High Court held:

“… most importantly, it is uncontroversial that [the Tribunal] is not a "court of a State" for the purposes of Ch III of the Constitution. It is, therefore, unnecessary to delve into the considerations that bear upon the question whether any given tribunal is to be recognised as a "court" for the purposes of Ch III of the Constitution.”

The decision did not address Tribunal jurisdiction for disputes between two corporations operating out of different states or a dispute between a corporation and an individual resident of different states. 

How will matters between residents of different states be dealt with?

The Justice Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 2017 (NSW) has introduced amendments to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act) to deal with the jurisdiction gap arising from this case. The amendments, which commenced on 1 December 2017, inserted a new Part 3A into the NCAT Act dealing with federal diversity jurisdiction.

Specifically, section 34B of the NCAT Act now provides that a person with standing to make an original application or external appeal to the Tribunal may, with the leave of an authorised court, make the application or appeal to the District Court or the Local Court instead. Since these are Courts of a State and are therefore vested with federal diversity jurisdiction, this provides an avenue for disputing parties of different states whose matter would otherwise be dealt with by the Tribunal to have their matter heard. 

The authorised court may only grant leave for the application or appeal to be made to the District or Local Court if satisfied that:

(a) the application or appeal was first made with the Tribunal

(b) the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the application or appeal because its determination involves the exercise of federal diversity jurisdiction

(c) the Tribunal would otherwise have had original jurisdiction or external appellate jurisdiction enabling it to determine the application or appeal

(d) substituted proceedings on the application or appeal would be within the jurisdictional limit of the court. 

Furthermore, an authorised court may remit an application or appeal to the Tribunal to determine it if the court is satisfied that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine it. 

What does this mean?

To some extent, given the new provisions now in force in the NCAT Act, the High Court’s decision is academic – but only to new applications. The amendments to the NCAT Act don’t assist matters which were underway before the amendments took effect, which we expect would now be transferred to appropriate courts. While this matter only concerned the Tribunal, the High Court’s ruling makes it clear that any court or tribunal which does not amount to a Court of a State under Chapter III of the Constitution cannot exercise federal diversity jurisdiction. As such, this decision is relevant to tribunals in other states.

Editorial: Christine Jones & Eleanor Grounds 


NSW Government Lawyers Linkedin Group

To start a conversation about Government Bulletin or issues of interest to NSW government lawyers, join the LinkedIn group NSW Government Lawyers by clicking on this link. Membership is open to those employed in the public sector.


In the media

Australian spy chief to face tribunal in fight to keep East Timor, Balibo records secret
Australia's spy chief is scheduled to appear at a tribunal to explain why Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) does not want the documents made public. In what is believed to be a first, ASIS director-general Paul Symon is scheduled to appear at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to put forward his organisation's case (27 April 2018).  More...

Privacy watchdog pulls up data breaches
The first quarterly report on data breach notifications received under the new Notifiable Data Breaches (NDB) scheme has been published by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC). In its report, the OAIC said it received 63 data breach notifications under the scheme during the first six weeks of its operation (23 April 2018).  More...

BOSCAR: Evaluation of a domestic violence treatment program
The treatment program for domestic violence offenders known as DVEQUIPS does not appear to reduce the risk of re-offending, according to an evaluation of the program completed by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) (23 April 2018). More...

ASD signals cybersecurity priorities
An assessment of cyber security, collaboration with internet companies, a counter cyber-crime campaign and improving the identification and management of cyber security risks have been identified as priorities for the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) and the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) for the coming year (23 April 2018). More...

Concerns over unsafe working conditions in prisons
A state-wide strike last week highlighted overcrowding within NSW prisons, the need to address recidivism, and a shortage of support services, an expert says (20 April 2018).  More...

Appointment of new judge for Dust Diseases Tribunal in NSW
Attorney General Mark Speakman today announced the appointment of Sydney barrister Wendy Strathdee to the bench as a member of the Dust Diseases Tribunal and the District Court of NSW. Ms Strathdee will be sworn in and begin sitting on the DDT from Tuesday 22 May (20 April 2018). More...

NDIS provider sues 'whistleblower'
LiveBetter Services, a regional NSW-based National Disability Insurance Scheme provider, has launched legal action against Ken Freedman. The Federal Court has issued an interlocutory order against Freedman, directing him not to disclose confidential information and to remove a post from a Facebook page (19 April 2018). More...

Review of the Identity-matching Services Bill 2018
If enacted, the Bill will, according to the LCA, facilitate the exchange of identity information between the Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments, and authorise the Department of Home Affairs to collect, use and disclose identification information to operate the systems that will support a set of new biometric face-matching services. The Law Council remains concerned that the Bill will erode current protections provided by the Privacy Act (18 April 2018).  More...

In practice and courts

Open Government open for report
A report into the first year
of Australia’s first Open Government National Action Plan 2016–18 has found that substantial progress has been made. The Open Government Partnership (OGP) objective, used third-party indicators to determine the extent of country progress on each of the criteria: fiscal transparency, public officials’ asset disclosure, citizen engagement, and access to information (16 April 2018).  More... 

Law Council consults on Review of Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules
The Law Council is undertaking a review of the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules. This is the first comprehensive review of the Rules since they were first promulgated in June 2011. The Law Council’s Professional Ethics Committee has developed a Consultation Discussion Paper for the Review  and invites comments and submissions on the issues raised and discussed. Read more here. The closing date for Submissions is 31 May 2018, which may be lodged here.

Judiciary Amendment (Commonwealth Model Litigant Obligations) Bill 2017
The Senate referred the Judiciary Amendment (Commonwealth Model Litigant Obligations) Bill 2017 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 May 2018. More...

ICAC: Prosecution briefs with the DPP and outcomes
Tables of prosecution briefs with the DPP and outcomes. Last updated 17 April 2018. More...

ICAC: Operation Skyline public inquiry adjourned
The Operation Skyline investigation public inquiry into allegations concerning the Awabakal Local Aboriginal Land Council is adjourned until 7 May 2018.  More...

BOSCAR Forthcoming Releases
NSW Custody Statistics quarterly update Mar 2018 – 30 April 2018. More...

NSW Law Reform Commission: Access to digital assets upon death or incapacity
The Attorney General has asked us to review and report on the laws that affect access to a NSW person's digital assets after they die or become incapacitated. We invite preliminary submissions on what this review should cover. The deadline for preliminary submissions is 1 June 2018.  More...  More...

Published – articles, papers, reports

Plea negotiations: an empirical analysis
Asher Flynn, Arie Freiberg, Australian Institute of Criminology: 26 April 2018
Negotiating guilty pleas (‘plea bargaining’) is a central element of criminal justice processes in Australia, yet little is known outside the legal community about the frequency and outcomes of plea negotiations.  More...

Introduction to the International Association of Judges Panel
Remarks given by the Honourable Justice Roslyn Atkinson AO at the International Association of Judges Panel on Combatting Corruption in the Justice System – Good Practices and Lessons Learned at the Launch of the Global Judicial Integrity Network: Vienna, 9 April 2018.  More...

Measures to Promote Integrity and Combat Corruption within the Judiciary
Speech given by the Honourable Justice Roslyn Atkinson AO at the International Association of Judges Panel on Combatting Corruption in the Justice System – Good Practices and Lessons Learned at the Launch of the Global Judicial Integrity Network: Vienna, 9 April 2018. . The speech briefly discusses the findings of the International Association of Judges First Study Commission as they relate to best practice adopted by judges around the world to promote integrity and combat corruption in the judiciary. 'More...'

How much does prison really cost? Comparing the costs of imprisonment with community corrections
Anthony Morgan, Australian Institute of Criminology: 24 April 2018
The purpose of this research was to calculate the total net cost of pathways through imprisonment and community corrections in Victoria, taking into account a range of direct and indirect costs and savings associated with a matched cohort of prisoners and offenders.  More...

Managing risks in the NSW public sector: risk culture and capability
New South Wales Auditor-General; Audit Office of New South Wales: 23 April 2018
This report provides guidance, and includes recommendations to councils and the Office of Local Government, aimed at strengthening financial reporting, asset management and governance and internal controls.  More...

Cases

Burns v Corbett; Burns v Gaynor; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns; New South Wales v Burns [2018] HCA 15
Appeal dismissed. Constitutional law (Cth) – Chapter III – Where complaints made under Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) came before Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales (NCAT) – Where parties to disputes residents of different States – Where common ground that NCAT exercised State judicial power in hearing and determining disputes – Where common ground that NCAT not a "court of a State" – Whether Ch III of Constitution contains implication preventing any party to federal compact from conferring adjudicative authority in respect of matters listed in ss.75 and 76 of Constitution on organ of government, federal or State, other than a court referred to in Ch III.
Constitutional law (Cth) – Inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws – Where Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) purports to confer jurisdiction on NCAT to determine disputes between residents of different States – Whether State law alters, impairs or detracts from operation of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39(2).

Carrigan v NSW Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATOD 60
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – Home Building – Application for individual contractor licence – Where application rejected on basis that applicant did not meet requirements of an instrument made by the respondent – Whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has the requisite qualifications and experience to be a builder.  

Transport for NSW v Searle [2018] NSWCATAP 93
APPEAL – administrative law – access to government information – risk management of high profile infrastructure project – information supplied to expert review team investigating project status under confidentiality regime – proof as to whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of confidential information – error of law or fact – reconsideration of merits – whether overriding public interest against disclosure. 

Nicholls v Transport for NSW (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAD 89
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 - GIPA Act – Government information – access – confidential information – cabinet material – position minister was taking – reasonable grounds for claim – requirement for documents before the tribunal – meaning of documents. 

DKZ v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2018] NSWCATAD 86
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – merits Victims Rights and Support - restitution order against person convicted of relevant offence – requirement that there be a conviction for relevant offence – restitution not available where no conviction for relevant offence. 

Faaea v Secretary, Department of Education [2018] NSWCATAD 85
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Education and Care Services National Law – Cancellation of Service Approval - Whether the applicant had complied with condition requiring her to commence ongoing operation of the service within 6 months – Meaning of “ongoing operation of the service” - Whether applicant had commenced operation of the service at all – Whether cancellation decision is the correct and preferable decision. 

CYH v Family and Community Services [2018] NSWCATAD 84
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Privacy – retention and security of personal information – request not to disclose personal information to a specific body - disclosure of personal information – whether individual is reasonably likely to be aware that information of that kind is usually disclosed to a person or body – whether disclosure lawfully authorised, or non-compliance permitted, necessarily implied or reasonably contemplated under another Act - prevention of unauthorised use or disclosure of the information – financial loss or damage – principles of causation – compensation.  

Desane Properties Pty Limited v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 553
PUBLIC LAW – COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND – Land Acquisition (Just Terms) Compensation Act 1991, s.15 – Roads Act 1993, ss.177(1) and (2)(b) – validity of proposed acquisition notice –departure from Ministerially approved form – validity of approved form – requirement to state public purpose of acquisition – improper purpose – whether proposed acquisition notice issued for ulterior purpose; HELD proposed acquisition invalid for statutory non-compliance. If otherwise not invalid, it would be invalid because it was issued for improper purposes. 

Legislation

Proclamations commencing Acts

Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Act 2017 No 55
(2018-164) — published LW 27 April 2018.

Regulations and other miscellaneous instruments

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Regulation 2018
(2018-169) — published LW 27 April 2018. 

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Guilty Pleas) Regulation 2018
(2018-170) — published LW 27 April 2018.

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Regulation 2018
(2018-171) — published LW 27 April 2018. 

Public Authorities (Financial Arrangements) Amendment (Ministerial Investments) Regulation 2018
(2018-175) — published LW 27 April 2018.

Public Health Amendment (Disclosure of Information on Former Pap Test Register) Regulation 2018
(2018-176) — published LW 27 April 2018.

Disclaimer

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources.

Published by:

Eleanor Grounds

Share this