Henderson v Defence Housing Authority

Last updated

Henderson v Defence Housing Authority
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameRe Residential Tenancies Tribunal of NSW v Henderson; Ex parte Defence Housing Authority
Decided12 August 1997
Citation(s) [1997] HCA 36, (1997) 190 CLR 410; (1997) 146 ALR 495; (1997) 71 ALJR 1254
Court membership
Judges sitting Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Kirby JJ
Case opinions
Decision byDawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ
ConcurrenceBrennan CJ
Concur/dissentMcHugh J; Gummow J
DissentKirby J

Henderson v Defence Housing Authority, [1] also known as the Residential Tenancies case, is a landmark Australian High Court decision on intergovernmental immunity and states' rights under the Australian Constitution.

Contents

Facts of the case

Dr Henderson was the owner of a house which was leased by the Defence Housing Authority which used the property to provide accommodation for defence personnel. Dr Henderson the owner sought orders from the NSW Residential Tenancies Tribunal requiring the DHA to allow him to enter the premises for the purpose of inspection and give the owner a key to the premises.

In response the DHA maintained that it was not bound by the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 [2] as it was immune from state laws about tenant disputes due to the Commonwealth government enjoying Crown immunity from State laws.

The matter was heard before the High Court of Australia.

Decision reached

It was established that the DHA was created under s. 61 of the Constitution (concerning the royal prerogative), so there was no actual law in which the state law could be in conflict.

By a 6:1 majority (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ; Kirby J dissenting) the Court held that the DHA is subject to the NSW Act.

Four judges saw a distinction between the capacity of the crown which state law can’t affect and the exercise of the crown authority which state law could affect. One judge (McHugh) thought it was unrealistic to make that distinction, but held a state law could affect the manner in which the performance of commonwealth duty.

By a 6:1 majority (McHugh J dissenting) the Court rejected the broad proposition that the Commonwealth cannot be bound by State legislation.

However, by a 6:1 majority (Kirby J dissenting) also rejected the argument that the Commonwealth's constitutional immunity from State law is no greater than the immunity which the States enjoy from Commonwealth law.

Impact

Henderson is relevant in assessing how a State's legislative and executive actions may affect the Commonwealth's executive power, [3] although a State's executive actions in that regard appear to be restricted to the area of royal prerogative. [4]

While there were majorities in favour of general concepts in the matter, there were differing views on specific aspects concerning the distribution of legislative power: [5]

  • Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ held that, where the Commonwealth has a pre-existing relationship with a citizen and a State passes a law which potentially affects that relationship, the State law will be valid so long as it is of general application and does impose a disability on, or remove a privilege or immunity of, the Commonwealth. In Brennan CJ's view, which was similar to McHugh J's, such laws would not be valid as the Commonwealth had not chosen whether to be subject to it. [6] As all five agreed that the Commonwealth will only be bound by State law where it has consented to be bound, this has the effect of making the Commonwealth executive superior to those of the States. [7]
  • Whether a State law affects the executive capacities of the Commonwealth, as opposed to the exercise of them, will be a matter subject to the facts of a particular case. [8]
  • The High Court's view of the relevance of s. 109 in such matters was inconclusive. McHugh, Gummow and Kirby JJ believed that, where executive power arises from statute, the Commonwealth's protection from State law must come from s. 109 and not from the Cigamatic doctrine. [9] Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ did not consider s. 109 in formulating their judgment. Certain commentators consider the first viewpoint to be more consistent with the nature of Australian federation. [10]
  • While Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ held that the States do not have specific legislative powers to restrict or modify the executive capacities of the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth does have such authority with respect to those of the States, it has been noted that there is no reason why a State law could not affect the Commonwealth so long as it is for the peace, order and good government of that State. [11]
  • Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ agreed that the States do not have the power to alter the legal relationships between the Commonwealth and its subjects. [11]

The majority of Justices accepted that s. 64 of the Judiciary Act 1903 [12] did not apply, as the DHA was not a body that was subject to the Cigamatic doctrine. However, Commonwealth v Evans Deakin Industries [13] had previously held that that provision will mean that a wide range of State laws may apply to the Commonwealth in circumstances where the doctrine applies. [14]

See also

Further reading

Related Research Articles

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. A similar, stronger rule as regards foreign courts is named state immunity.

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.

<i>Polyukhovich v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth [1991] HCA 32; (1991) 172 CLR 501, commonly referred to as the War Crimes Act Case, was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the external affairs power in section 51(xxix) of the Constitution and the judicial power of the Commonwealth.

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.

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.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1990) Australian constitutional law case

New South Wales v The Commonwealth, the Incorporation Case, was a decision handed down in the High Court of Australia on 8 February 1990 concerning the corporations power in s51(xx) of the Commonwealth Constitution. The states of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia brought an application seeking a declaration as to the validity of certain aspects of the Corporations Act 1989 (Cth).

<i>Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally</i>

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia on 17 June 1999. The case concerned the constitutional validity of cross-vesting of jurisdiction, in particular, the vesting of state companies law jurisdiction in the Federal Court.

<i>Barley Marketing Board (NSW) v Norman</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Barley Marketing Board (NSW) v Norman, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with the question of whether State-run marketing boards are permissible under Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, which deals with the freedom of interstate trade and commerce.

<i>Ha v New South Wales</i> 1997 High Court of Australia case

Ha v New South Wales is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.

<i>Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation</i> 1997 Australian High Court case

Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a High Court of Australia case that upheld the existence of an implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution, but found that it did not necessarily provide a defence to a defamation action. The High Court extended the defence of qualified privilege to be compatible with the freedom of political communication.

<i>Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that provides guidance as to the constitutional definition of a tax.

<i>Leeth v Commonwealth</i> Australian High Court decision

Leeth v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that held that there was no implied right of legal equality in the Australian Constitution.

<i>Kruger v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

In Kruger v Commonwealth, also known as the Stolen Generation Case, the High Court of Australia rejected a challenge to the validity of legislation applying in the Northern Territory between 1918 and 1957 which authorised the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The majority of the bench found that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion. The High Court unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.

<i>Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills</i>

Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills is a High Court of Australia case that deals with a number of issues regarding the Australian Constitution, including the Express right free interstate trade and commerce, the implied freedom of political communication, and the role of proportionality.

<i>Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) was a case before the High Court of Australia determining that the HREOC could not validly exercise judicial power. The High Court maintained a firm position against attempts to confer judicial powers upon non-judicial bodies.

<i>Combet v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Combet v Commonwealth, was an Australian court case commenced in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia by Greg Combet, then the secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and Nicola Roxon. The plaintiffs challenged the Australian Government's use of public funds to advertise the new Work Choices legislation. The High Court found that the expenditure was authorised by the Appropriation Act 2005–2006.

In Australia, murder, like most criminal law, is defined by State legislation.

In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity, as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws.

<i>Commonwealth v Verwayen</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Commonwealth v Verwayen, also known as the Voyager case, is a leading case involving estoppel in Australia. Bernard Verwayen sued the Australian government for damages caused by a collision between two ships of the Australian Navy. A representative of the Government initially indicated to Bernard Verwayen that the Government would not raise the statute of limitations as a defence to their negligence. In court however, the Government relied on this defence. While the decision of the High Court was split, a majority of judges found that the Government could not rely on this statement as a defence. Justices Toohey and Gaudron came to this conclusion on the basis that the Government had waived their right to rely on this defence. However, Justices Deane and Dawson came to this conclusion under the doctrine of estoppel, which provides that a defendant can not contradict a previous representation or promise made that has established an assumed state of legal affairs. This case is most frequently referred to in relation to its influence on the doctrine of estoppel.

<i>MIEA v Guo</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

MIEA v Guo, also known as 'Guo' is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case is an important decision in Australian refugee law. The case has been described as setting out 'what is required for a decision-maker to have a "rational basis" for determining whether an applicant for refugee status has a well founded fear of persecution'.

References

  1. ↑ Henderson v Defence Housing Authority [1997] HCA 36 , (1997) 190 CLR 410; (1997) 146 ALR 495; (1997) 71 ALJR 1254, High Court (Australia)
  2. ↑ Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (NSW), since replaced by the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
  3. ↑ Gladman 1999, p. 156.
  4. ↑ Gladman 1999, p. 157.
  5. ↑ Gladman 1999, pp. 158–162.
  6. ↑ Gladman 1999, p. 158.
  7. ↑ Gladman 1999, pp. 161–162.
  8. ↑ Gladman 1999, p. 159.
  9. ↑ Commonwealth v Cigamatic Pty Ltd (In Liq) [1962] HCA 40 , (1962) 108 CLR 372(2 August 1962), High Court (Australia)
  10. ↑ Gladman 1999, pp. 159–160.
  11. 1 2 Gladman 1999, p. 161.
  12. ↑ Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 64
  13. ↑ Commonwealth v Evans Deakin Industries Ltd [1986] HCA 51 , (1986) 161 CLR 254(26 August 1986), High Court (Australia)
  14. ↑ AGS 1997.
  15. ↑ Pirrie v McFarlane [1925] HCA 30 , (1925) 36 CLR 170 (24 August 1925), High Court (Australia).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.