Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth)

Last updated

Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth)
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided22 October 1912
Citation(s) [1912] HCA 94, (1912) 15 CLR 182
Case opinions
(4:0) The Royal Commission Act was valid (2:2) the Royal commission could only compel evidence on matters within the power of the Commonwealth per Griffith CJ and Barton J
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Griffith CJ, Barton, Isaacs & Higgins JJ
Attorney-General (Cth) v Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council).svg
Court Privy Council
Decided17 December 1913
Citation(s) [1913] UKPC 76, [1914] AC 237;
[1913] UKPCHCA 4, (1913) 17  CLR  644
Case opinions
The Royal Commission Act was invalid
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Viscount Haldane LC, Lord Dunedin, Lord Shaw & Lord Moulton.

Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth), [1] is the only case in which the High Court issued a certificate under section 74 of the Constitution to permit an appeal to the Privy Council on a constitutional question. The Privy Council did not answer the question asked by the High Court, [2] and the court never issued another certificate of appeal. [3]

Contents

Background

The Commonwealth established a Royal Commission to inquire into the sugar industry in Australia. Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd operated sugar mills and refineries, principally in Australia and Fiji. The Royal Commission had summoned the general manager and directors of Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd to testify and produce documents, including a list of documents to be produced and questions they would be asked. Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd sought a declaration in the High Court that the Royal Commissions Act 1902-1912 was invalid. [4]

The decision of the High Court

In separate judgments, each of the judges upheld the validity of the Royal Commission Act. [4] What split the court however was the question of whether the Royal Commission could inquire into matters that might be the subject of an amendment to the Constitution.

Griffith CJ & Barton J

In separate judgments, Griffith CJ & Barton J took a narrow view of the powers of the Royal Commission, applying the reserved powers doctrine. [1] Their Honours held that the Commission could not lawfully ask questions, or demand the production of documents, relevant solely to:

Isaacs & Higgins JJ

In separate judgments, Isaacs & Higgins JJ took a much broader view of the incidental power under the Constitution to make inquiries with a view to the exercise of any other functions of the Commonwealth, including the power to seek approval for an amendment of the constitution. [1]

The certificate

Section 74 of the constitution provided that

No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council.

The High Court may so certify if satisfied that for any special reason the certificate should be granted, and thereupon an appeal shall lie to Her Majesty in Council on the question without further leave.

Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council. The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which such leave may be asked, but proposed laws containing any such limitation shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty's pleasure.

Because the High Court was equally divided in opinion, it granted a certificate pursuant to section 74 of the Constitution in the following form:

Pursuant to sec. 74 of the Constitution this Court doth certify that, so far as the question whether the Parliament of the Commonwealth has power to make laws for the compulsory examination of witnesses by Royal Commissions touching matters which are not within the ambit of the existing legislative powers of the Commonwealth, that is to say, such powers as may now be exercised without an amendment of the Constitution under the provisions of sec. 128, is a question as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, the question is one which ought to be determined by His Majesty in Council. [1]

The decision of the Privy Council

The Privy Council did not answer the question posed by the High Court, whether a Royal Commission could inquire into matters that might be the subject of an amendment to the Constitution. Instead the Privy Council held that, contrary to the decision of all four of the judges of the High Court, the Royal Commission Act, [4] was invalid so far as it purported to enable a Royal Commission to compel answers generally to questions, or to order the production of documents. [2]

Significance

In 1918 Prime Minister Hughes described the decision of the Privy Council as one "which must have caused great embarrassment and confusion, if it were not for the fortunate fact that the reasons for the Judicial Committee's decision are stated in such a way that no court and no counsel in Australia has yet been able to find out what they were". [5]

The High Court never certified another inter se appeal. [3] In Whitehouse v Queensland the court said: "experience shows - and that experience was anticipated when s. 74 was enacted - that it is only those who dwell under a Federal Constitution who can become adequately qualified to interpret and apply its provisions." [6]

In the case of Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (1985), the High Court went further holding that it would never again grant a certificate of appeal, stating "Although the jurisdiction to grant a certificate stands in the Constitution, such limited purpose as it had has long since been spent. The march of events and the legislative changes that have been effected - to say nothing of national sentiment - have made the jurisdiction obsolete." [7]

This declaration by the Court and the provisions of the Australia Act 1986 by both the UK Parliament [8] and the Parliament of Australia [9] (with the request and consent of the Australian States) have for practical purposes ended all means of appeal from Australian courts to the Privy Council. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

High Court of Australia Highest court in Australia

The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified within Australia's Constitution.

Australia Act 1986 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.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

The 1913 Australian referendum was held on 31 May 1913. It contained six referendum questions and was held in conjunction with the 1913 federal election.

<i>R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers Society of Australia</i>

R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia, known as the Boilermakers' Case, was a 1956 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to punish the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, a union which had disobeyed the orders of that court in relation to an industrial dispute between boilermakers and their employer body, the Metal Trades Employers' Association.

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.

Australian legal system Codified and uncodified forms of law of Australia

The legal system of Australia has multiple forms. It includes a written constitution, unwritten constitutional conventions, statutes, regulations, and the judicially determined common law system. Its legal institutions and traditions are substantially derived from that of the English legal system. Australia is a common-law jurisdiction, its court system having originated in the common law system of English law. The country's common law is enforced uniformly across the states.

The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

Section 51(i) of the Australian Constitution enables the Parliament of Australia to make laws about:

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.

In Australian constitutional law, Chapter III Courts are courts of law which are a part of the Australian federal judiciary and thus are able to discharge Commonwealth judicial power. They are so named because the prescribed features of these courts are contained in Chapter III of the Australian Constitution.

<i>OSullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd</i>

O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd, was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the trade and commerce power, under s 51(i) of the Australian Constitution, and inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws, under section 109 of the Constitution.

<i>OSullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd (No 2)</i>

O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd , was a High Court of Australia case, in which a certificate, under s 74 of the Australian Constitution, was sought for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the previous decision of O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd.

Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales, was a Privy Council decision that affirmed the High Court of Australia's decision in Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth, promoting the theory of "individual rights" to ensure freedom of interstate trade and commerce. The case dealt primarily with Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia.

<i>Sue v Hill</i> Australian High Court case

Sue v Hill was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 23 June 1999. It concerned a dispute over the apparent return of a candidate, Heather Hill, to the Australian Senate in the 1998 federal election. The result was challenged on the basis that Hill was a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and Australia, and that section 44(i) of the Constitution of Australia prevents any person who is the citizen of a "foreign power" from being elected to the Parliament of Australia. The High Court found that, at least for the purposes of section 44(i), the United Kingdom is a foreign power to Australia.

<i>Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd</i> (No 2)

Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd , was a decision of the High Court of Australia on 17 April 1985 concerning section 74 of the Constitution of Australia. The Court denied an application by the Attorney-General of Queensland seeking a certificate that would permit the Privy Council to hear an appeal from the High Court's decision in Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd .

Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia

Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, as far as is still relevant today is:

... trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

Section 99 of the Constitution of Australia, is one of several important non-discrimination provisions that govern actions of the Commonwealth and the various States.

<i>Deakin v Webb</i>

Deakin v Webb was one of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The High Court of Australia overruled a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, holding that the States could not tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. This resulted in conflict with the Privy Council that was ultimately resolved by the passage of Commonwealth law in 1907 to permit the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case.

<i>Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation</i> (NSW) Australian tax case

Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW), and Flint v Webb, were the last of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer which had resulted in conflict between the High Court and the Privy Council. The two cases were heard together, however two separate judgments were issued with Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW) addressing the substantive issues, and Flint v Webb addressing the applications for a certificate to appeal to the Privy Council. The judgement of Griffith CJ in Flint v Webb suggested two ways in which that conflict could be resolved. Both suggestions were adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament by legislation that permitted the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer, and gave the High Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction on such constitutional questions. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' case.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) [1912] HCA 94 , au/cases/cth/HCA/1912/94.pdf (1912) 15 CLR 182 , High Court (Australia).
  2. 1 2 Attorney-General (Cth) v Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd [1913] UKPC 76 , (1914) AC 237; [1913] UKPCHCA 4 , (1913) 17 CLR 644 at p. 656, Privy Council (on appeal fromAustralia).
  3. 1 2 Hull, Crispin (2003). The High Court of Australia: celebrating the centenary 1903–2003. Lawbook Co. ISBN   0-455-21947-8.
  4. 1 2 3 "Royal Commissions Act 1902". as amended by the "Royal Commissions Act 1912". Commonwealth of Australia. 19 August 1912.
  5. David B. Swinfen (1987). Imperial Appeal: The Debate on the Appeal to the Privy Council, 1833-1986. Manchester University Press. p. 72. ISBN   9780719023125.
  6. Whitehouse v Queensland [1961] HCA 55 , (1961) 104 CLR 635 at p. 638, High Court (Australia).
  7. Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 2) [1985] HCA 27 , (1985) 159 CLR 461, High Court (Australia).
  8. "Australia Act 1986". Parliament of the United Kingdom. 17 February 1986..
  9. "Australia Act 1986". Commonwealth of Australia. 4 December 1985.
  10. Gleeson, M (18 June 2008). "The Privy Council - an Australian Perspective" (PDF). High Court of Australia.