Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

Last updated
Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Citation(s)[2010] HCA 1; 239 CLR 531
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingFrench CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, and Bell JJ

Heydon J
Case opinions
Appeal allowed

Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that dealt with the constitutional limits on State Courts' powers and the doctrine of jurisdictional error.

Contents

The case has had a significant impact on Australian administrative law. It has partially clarified the extent to which State Parliaments can limit the exercise of judicial power by courts within their jurisdiction.

Facts

In 2001, a fatal accident occurred on a rural property owned by Graeme Kirk, involving an employee who was operating a Polaris ATV. The WorkCover Authority of New South Wales investigated the incident and charged Kirk and his company, Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd, with breaches of occupational health and safety legislation. In 2004, the Industrial Court of New South Wales convicted Kirk and his company, imposing fines.

Kirk appealed to the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales, arguing that the Industrial Court had made errors in law in its decision. The Commission dismissed the appeal, and Kirk subsequently sought judicial review in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Supreme Court held that it did not have the power to review the commission's decision due to provisions in the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), which limited its jurisdiction to do so (Such as s179 of the IR Act, which contained a privative clause). [1]

Kirk then appealed to the High Court of Australia, arguing that the provisions in the Industrial Relations Act that restricted the Supreme Court's ability to review the commission's decision were constitutionally invalid, as they were inconsistent with the Constitution's requirement that State Supreme Courts exercise federal judicial power.

Judgement

The High Court, in a unanimous decision, allowed Kirk's appeal. The Court held that the provisions in the Industrial Relations Act that restricted the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to review the commission's decision were constitutionally invalid. The Court found that Chapter III of Australia's constitution, by implication, prevents State Parliaments from enacting legislation that would excessively limit or exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of State Supreme Courts over decisions made by inferior courts and tribunals. [2]

Speaking as to these limits, the court noted that:

This is not to say that there can be no legislation affecting the availability of judicial review in the State Supreme Courts. It is not to say that no privative provision is valid. Rather, the observations made about the constitutional significance of the supervisory jurisdiction of the State Supreme Courts point to the continued need for, and utility of, the distinction between jurisdictional and non‑jurisdictional error in the Australian constitutional context. The distinction marks the relevant limit on State legislative power. Legislation which would take from a State Supreme Court power to grant relief on account of jurisdictional error is beyond State legislative power. Legislation which denies the availability of relief for non‑jurisdictional error of law appearing on the face of the record is not beyond power. [3]
French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, and Bell JJ, at [100]

It also found that Walton J of the Industrial Court had made a jurisdictional error in their original decision, and so had wrongly convicted Kirk and his company. As a result, the High Court quashed the convictions and set aside the fines imposed on Kirk and his company. [4]

Significance

Kirk is a landmark case in Australian administrative law, as it has significantly influenced the relationship between State Courts and administrative decision-makers. The case has elaborated upon the extent to which State Courts can exercise judicial review of administrative decisions and has provided greater certainty about the scope of jurisdictional error. One commentator described the case as 'breathing life into Kable', in reference to Kable v DPP. [5]

The decision has reinforced the role of Australia's State Supreme Courts in ensuring that administrative decision-makers act within the limits of their legal authority. By preventing State Parliaments from enacting legislation that would limit or exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of State Supreme Courts over decisions made by inferior courts and tribunals, the case in some respects has strengthened the role of Australian courts in enforcing administrative law. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

Australian labour law concerns Commonwealth, state, and common law on rights and duties of workers, unions and employers in Australia. Australian labour law has a dual structure, where some employment issues and relationships are governed by Commonwealth laws, and others are governed by state and territory laws or the common law. It shares a heritage with laws across the Commonwealth of Nations, UK labour law and standards set by the International Labour Organization, the Australian legislature and courts have a built a comprehensive charter of rights at work.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

<i>Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Kable v DPP, is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It is a significant case in Australian constitutional law.

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">Australian legal system</span> 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 the same across the states and territories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of New South Wales</span> Superior court of New South Wales, Australia

The Supreme Court of New South Wales is the highest state court of the Australian State of New South Wales. It has unlimited jurisdiction within the state in civil matters, and hears the most serious criminal matters. Whilst the Supreme Court is the highest New South Wales court in the Australian court hierarchy, an appeal by special leave can be made to the High Court of Australia.

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.

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</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Industrial Court of New South Wales</span>

The Industrial Court of New South Wales was a court within the Australian court hierarchy that exercised the judicial functions of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales within the Australian state of New South Wales. The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of industrial disputes in that state.

The persona designata doctrine is a doctrine in law, particularly in Canadian and Australian constitutional law which states that, although it is generally impermissible for a federal judge to exercise non-judicial power, it is permissible for a judge to do so if the power has been conferred on the judge personally, as opposed to powers having been conferred on the court. The doctrine in the more general sense has been recognised throughout the common law countries. Persona designata, according to Black's Law Dictionary, means "A person considered as an individual rather than as a member of a class"; thus it may be a person specifically named or identified in a lawsuit, as opposed to the one belonging to an identified category or group. While it has its origin in Montesquieu's doctrine of the separation of powers, it can be traced back as far as Aristotle's Politics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ouster clause</span>

An ouster clause or privative clause is, in countries with common law legal systems, a clause or provision included in a piece of legislation by a legislative body to exclude judicial review of acts and decisions of the executive by stripping the courts of their supervisory judicial function. According to the doctrine of the separation of powers, one of the important functions of the judiciary is to keep the executive in check by ensuring that its acts comply with the law, including, where applicable, the constitution. Ouster clauses prevent courts from carrying out this function, but may be justified on the ground that they preserve the powers of the executive and promote the finality of its acts and decisions.

Jurisdictional fact are facts which must objectively exist before a statutory power can be exercised by a decision-maker. They are created by and operate in the context of government authority produced by statute and are linked to the legal concept of jurisdiction. A number of scholars have tried, with limited success, to categorise them.

Jurisdictional error is a concept in administrative law, particularly in the UK and Australia. Jurisdiction is the "authority to decide", and a jurisdictional error occurs when the extent of that authority is misconceived. Decisions affected by jurisdictional error can be quashed by judicial review. Examples of jurisdictional errors include asking a wrong question, ignoring relevant material, relying on irrelevant material, and breaching natural justice.

<i>Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co, commonly known as Whybrow's case or the Boot Trades case was the third of a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia in 1910 concerning the boot manufacturing industry and the role of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in preventing and settling industrial disputes. In doing so the High Court considered the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to provide for common rule awards and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant prohibition against the Arbitration Court. The majority held in Whybrow that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law, but that different minimum wages were not inconsistent as it was possible to obey both laws. In Whybrow the High Court established the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" being treated "prima facie as genuine and real", with the majority holding that the High Court had power to order prohibition to correct jurisdictional error as part of its original jurisdiction. Finally in Whybrow the High Court unanimously held that the Federal Parliament had no constitutional power to provide for common rule awards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution Act 1902</span> Australian legislation

The Constitution Act 1902 is the founding document of the State of New South Wales, and sets out many of the basic principles of the Government of New South Wales. This act created the foundation of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Government of New South Wales. Most of the Constitution can be amended through ordinary Acts of Parliament, however some sections can only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters.

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.

<i>Craig v South Australia</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Craig v South Australia is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Knight v Victoria</i>

Knight v Victoria is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia.

References

  1. ↑ [2010] HCA 1 at [55]
  2. ↑ [2010] HCA 1 at [99]
  3. ↑ [2010] HCA 1 at [100]
  4. ↑ [2010] HCA 1 at [110]
  5. ↑ LACEY, W. (2010). Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales : breathing life into Kable. Melbourne University Law Review, 34(2), 641–668. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agis_archive.20113121
  6. ↑ Vial, A. (2011). The minimum entrenched supervisory review jurisdiction of state Supreme Courts : Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531. The Adelaide Law Review, 32(1), 145–166. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.20114077
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.