Civil procedure in Australia

Last updated

The rules of civil procedure in Australia govern procedure in the various courts and tribunals in Australia. Civil procedure in Australia was historically derived from, and continues to resemble, civil procedure in England and Wales. The rules vary between the different courts and tribunals.

Contents

History

Before Federation, each Australian colony had a two- or three-tiered judicial system with a Supreme Court at its apex. [1] The colonial Supreme Courts followed the model of the Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales, as the High Court of Justice was known from the 1870s, when it was established by the Judicature Acts. [2] Civil procedure in the colonial Supreme Courts was governed by rules made by the judges and known as the Rules of the Supreme Court , some of which continue in force today. [3]

Legislation

Most states have now codified the rules of civil procedure as delegated legislation, sometimes known as Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The Chief Justice of the relevant Supreme Court is generally the chair of a rules committee with the power to amend the rules. [4] However, the title and structure of the relevant civil procedure rules is not uniform across jurisdictions.

For example, the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) are quite different. In Queensland, the rules were intended to be "uniform, so far as practicable, for all three courts in the State stream" [5] – that is, to unify the procedure of the Supreme, District and Magistrates Court, not participate in a cooperative federalism effort like the Uniform Evidence Acts. [6]

The following legislation governs civil procedure in each jurisdiction.

Commonwealth

New South Wales

Queensland

South Australia

Tasmania

Victoria

Western Australia

Australian Capital Territory

Northern Territory

Commentary

Civil procedure is one of the Priestley 11 subjects which all Australian lawyers are required to study. There are a number of textbooks available, as well as regularly-updated commentaries for legal professionals.

See also

Related Research Articles

The courts of England and Wales, supported administratively by His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, are the civil and criminal courts responsible for the administration of justice in England and Wales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Magistrate</span> Officer of the state, usually judge

The term magistrate is used in a variety of systems of governments and laws to refer to a civilian officer who administers the law. In ancient Rome, a magistratus was one of the highest ranking government officers, and possessed both judicial and executive powers. In other parts of the world, such as China, magistrate is a word applied to a person responsible for administration over a particular geographic area. Today, in some jurisdictions, a magistrate is a judicial officer who hears cases in a lower court, and typically deals with more minor or preliminary matters. In other jurisdictions, magistrates are typically trained volunteers appointed to deal with criminal and civil matters in their local areas.

<i>Leptospermum</i> Genus of shrubs

Leptospermum is a genus of shrubs and small trees in the myrtle family Myrtaceae commonly known as tea trees, although this name is sometimes also used for some species of Melaleuca. Most species are endemic to Australia, with the greatest diversity in the south of the continent, but some are native to other parts of the world, including New Zealand and Southeast Asia. Leptospermums all have five conspicuous petals and five groups of stamens which alternate with the petals. There is a single style in the centre of the flower and the fruit is a woody capsule.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australia Act 1986</span> Legislation by the UK and Australian Parliaments

The Australia Act 1986 is the short title of each of a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, the other an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, because of uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament alone had the ultimate authority to do so. They were enacted using legislative powers conferred by enabling Acts passed by the parliaments of every Australian state. The Acts came into effect simultaneously, on 3 March 1986.

The system of tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of equity</span> Court authorized to apply principles of equity to cases

A court of equity, also known as an equity court or chancery court, is a court authorized to apply principles of equity rather than principles of law to cases brought before it. These courts originated from petitions to the Lord Chancellor of England and primarily heard claims for relief other than damages, such as specific performance and extraordinary writs. Over time, most equity courts merged with courts of law, and the adoption of various Acts granted courts combined jurisdiction to administer common law and equity concurrently. Courts of equity are now recognized for complementing the common law by addressing its shortcomings and promoting justice.

In Australia, one vote, one value is a democratic principle, applied in electoral laws governing redistributions of electoral divisions of the House of Representatives. The principle calls for all electoral divisions to have the same number of enrolled voters, within a specified percentage of variance. The electoral laws of the federal House of Representatives, and of the state and territory parliaments, follow the principle, with a few exceptions. The principle does not apply to the Senate because, under the Australian constitution, each state is entitled to the same number of senators, irrespective of the population of the state.

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Queensland</span> Highest court in the state of Queensland, Australia

The Supreme Court of Queensland is the highest court in the Australian State of Queensland. It was formerly the Brisbane Supreme Court, in the colony of Queensland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law of Australia</span>

The criminal law of Australia is the body of law in Australia that relates to crime.

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Norfolk Island</span> Superior court for the Australian territory of Norfolk Island

The Supreme Court of Norfolk Island is the superior court for the Australian territory of Norfolk Island. It has unlimited jurisdiction within the territory in civil matters and hears the most serious criminal matters. It also has jurisdiction over the Coral Sea Islands Territory. All matters are heard before a single judge, including appeals from the Court of Petty Sessions. In the Australian court hierarchy, it is one of eight state and territory Supreme Courts having unlimited jurisdiction in their respective parts of Australia. Appeal lies to the Federal Court of Australia, from which an appeal by special leave can be made to the High Court of Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Native Title Act 1993</span> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Native Title Act 1993(Cth) is a law passed by the Australian Parliament, the purpose of which is "to provide a national system for the recognition and protection of native title and for its co-existence with the national land management system". The Act was passed by the Keating government following the High Court's decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992). The Act commenced operation on 1 January 1994.

The Vice Admiralty Court was a prerogative court established in the late 18th century in the colony of New South Wales, which was to become a state of Australia. A vice admiralty court is in effect an admiralty court. The word "vice" in the name of the court denoted that the court represented the Lord Admiral of the United Kingdom. In English legal theory, the Lord Admiral, as vice-regal of the monarch, was the only person who had authority over matters relating to the sea. The Lord Admiral would authorize others as his deputies or surrogates to act. Generally, he would appoint a person as a judge to sit in the Court as his surrogate. By appointing Vice-Admirals in the colonies, and by constituting courts as Vice-Admiralty Courts, the terminology recognized that the existence and superiority of the "mother" court in the United Kingdom. Thus, the "vice" tag denoted that whilst it was a separate court, it was not equal to the "mother" court. In the case of the New South Wales court, a right of appeal lay back to the British Admiralty Court, which further reinforced this superiority. In all respects, the court was an Imperial court rather than a local Colonial court.

The Court of Disputed Returns is a court, tribunal, or some other body that determines disputes about elections in some common law countries. The court may be known by another name such as the Court of Disputed Elections. In countries that derive their legal tradition from the United Kingdom, the legal tradition is that Parliament is the supreme law-making body in the country. The same tradition mandates that as Parliament is sovereign, it alone has authority and jurisdiction to determine who and how a person can be elected to Parliament. Implicit in that authority is the jurisdiction to determine whether a person has been validly elected, which is commonly known as a "disputed return" and gives the court its name. The court is an attempt to eliminate the partisan nature of parliament and give the determination of electoral disputes to an independent and dispassionate neutral body. As parliament has the sole authority to determine these matters, parliament must create a special law to bring that body into existence to determine those disputes.

The terms legal case management (LCM), legal management system (LMS), matter management or legal project management refer to a subset of law practice management and cover a range of approaches and technologies used by law firms and courts to leverage knowledge and methodologies for managing the life cycle of a case or matter more effectively. Generally, the terms refer to the sophisticated information management and workflow practices that are tailored to meet the legal field's specific needs and requirements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judges' Council</span>

The Judges' Council is a body in England and Wales that, representing the judiciary, advises the Lord Chief Justice on judicial matters. It has its historical roots in the original Council of the Judges of the Supreme Court, created by the Judicature Act 1873 to oversee the new Supreme Court of Judicature. This body initially met regularly, reforming the procedure used by the circuit courts, and the new High Court of Justice but met less regularly as time went on, meeting only twice between 1900 and 1907, with a gap of ten years between meetings in 1940 and 1950 respectively. After relative inactivity, it was eventually wound up through the Supreme Court Act 1981, which contained no provisions for its continued existence, something Denis Dobson attributes to newer bodies which performed the duties the Council had originally been created to do.

In Australia, murder is a criminal offence where a person, by a voluntary act or omission, causes the death of another person with either intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, or with reckless indifference to human life. It may also arise in circumstances where the accused was committing, or assisting in the commission, of a different serious crime that results in a person's death. It is usually punished by life imprisonment.

Judicial independence is regarded as one of the foundation values of the Australian legal system, such that the High Court held in 2004 that a court capable of exercising federal judicial power must be, and must appear to be, an independent and impartial tribunal. Former Chief Justice Gerard Brennan described judicial independence as existing "to serve and protect not the governors but the governed", albeit one that "rests on the calibre and the character of the judges themselves". Despite general agreement as to its importance and common acceptance of some elements, there is no agreement as to each of the elements of judicial independence.

References

  1. South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39 [53].
  2. Law Reform Commission of New South Wales (9 September 1969). Supreme Court procedure (PDF) (Report). p. 7. Retrieved 4 March 2022.
  3. For example, the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA).
  4. Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 8; Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld) s 89.
  5. Paul de Jersey (20 June 1999). "Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Seminar: opening and overview" (PDF).
  6. Attorney-General's Department (Australia) (10 July 2015). "Uniform Evidence Acts comparative tables" . Retrieved 23 July 2019.