The General Court, informally known as the European General Court (EGC), is a constituent court of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It hears actions taken against the institutions of the European Union by individuals and member states, although certain matters are reserved for the European Court of Justice. Decisions of the General Court can be appealed to the Court of Justice, but only on a point of law. Prior to the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, it was known as the Court of First Instance.
A tribunal, generally, is any person or institution with authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes—whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title. For example, an advocate who appears before a court with a single judge could describe that judge as "their tribunal." Many governmental bodies are titled "tribunals" to emphasize that they are not courts of normal jurisdiction. For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was a body specially constituted under international law; in Great Britain, employment tribunals are bodies set up to hear specific employment disputes. In many cases, the word tribunal implies a judicial body with a lesser degree of formality than a court, in which the normal rules of evidence and procedure may not apply, and whose presiding officers are frequently neither judges nor magistrates. Private judicial bodies are also often styled "tribunals." The word tribunal, however, is not conclusive of a body's function—for example, in Great Britain, the Employment Appeal Tribunal is a superior court of record.
The court system of Canada is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. In the courts, the judiciary interpret and apply the law of Canada. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.
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.
Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia is the part of the Constitution of Australia that deals with the legislative inconsistency between federal and state laws, and declares that valid federal laws override inconsistent state laws, to the extent of the inconsistency. Section 109 is analogous to the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution and the paramountcy doctrine in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence, and the jurisprudence in one jurisdiction is considered persuasive in the others.
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.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is an Australian tribunal that conducts independent merits review of administrative decisions made under Commonwealth laws of the Australian Government. The AAT review decisions made by Australian Government ministers, departments and agencies, and in limited circumstances, decisions made by state government and non-government bodies. They also review decisions made under Norfolk Island laws. It is not a court and not part of the Australian court hierarchy; however, its decisions are subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The AAT was established by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and started operation in 1976.
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 binding on all other courts in a nation and 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. A Supreme Court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction, however, this is typically limited to constitutional law.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) was formed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 in the state of Victoria, Australia. As part of the Victorian Justice system the tribunal sits 'below' the Magistrates Court in the court hierarchy. However the tribunal itself is not a court, not possessing any jurisdiction or powers beyond those conferred by statute. VCAT is less formal than a court and helps resolve disputes through mediations, compulsory conferences and formal hearings. The participation of lawyers or other legal representatives is not encouraged in some list areas, substantially reducing the cost of litigation. However some of the list areas will by necessity require parties to have some form of representation.
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v New Brunswick Liquor Corp, [1979] 2 SCR 227 is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. This case first developed the patent unreasonableness standard of review in Canadian administrative law.
The Guardianship Tribunal of New South Wales, a former specialist disability tribunal of the Government of New South Wales for people with cognitive incapacity, or disability operated between 1989 and 2013. The Tribunal was superseded by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) which came into effect from 1 January 2014. Its functions now operate within a divisional context in the NCAT.
In the United Kingdom, a tribunal is a specialist court with jurisdiction over a certain area of civil law. They are generally designed to be more informal and accessible than 'traditional' courts.
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, also known as 'S157', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
An Act of Sederunt is secondary legislation made by the Court of Session, the supreme civil court of Scotland, to regulate the proceedings of Scottish courts and tribunals hearing civil matters. Originally made under an Act of the Parliament of Scotland of 1532, the modern power to make Acts of Sederunt is largely derived from the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. Since 2013, draft Acts have also been prepared by the Scottish Civil Justice Council and submitted to the Court of Session for approval.
Exclusion of judicial review has been attempted by the Parliament of Singapore to protect the exercise of executive power. Typically, this has been done though the insertion of finality or total ouster clauses into Acts of Parliament, or by wording powers conferred by Acts on decision-makers subjectively. Finality clauses are generally viewed restrictively by courts in the United Kingdom. The courts there have taken the view that such clauses are, subject to some exceptions, not effective in denying or restricting the extent to which the courts are able to exercise judicial review. In contrast, Singapore cases suggest that ouster clauses cannot prevent the High Court from exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the exercise of executive power where authorities have committed jurisdictional errors of law, but are effective against non-jurisdictional errors of law.
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 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.
R v SS for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.
