De Domenico v Marshall

(2001) 146 ACTR 30; [2001] ACTSC 52

Supreme Court of the ACT

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Courts and Judicial System
2. › Appellate jurisdiction
3. › Appeals from Administrative Appeals Tribunal (ACT)
4. › Whether appeal limited to questions of law
5. › Whether s 48A of Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth) entrenches appellate jurisdiction
6. › Whether Territory legislation can limit jurisdiction conferred by Commonwealth statute
7. › Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989 (ACT), s 46
8. › Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 20
9. › Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth), s 48A
1. Administrative Law
2. › Administrative Appeals Tribunal
3. › Duty to make findings of fact
4. › Failure to make findings with sufficient particularity
5. › Failure to give adequate reasons
6. › Whether constitutes error of law
1. Administrative Law
2. › Administrative Appeals Tribunal
3. › Procedural fairness
4. › Duty to unrepresented litigant
5. › Whether tribunal must warn of intended departure from approach taken below
6. › Whether tribunal must alert party to intended reliance on evidence previously found unreliable
1. Administrative Law
2. › Administrative Appeals Tribunal
3. › Relevant and irrelevant considerations
4. › Whether evidence of witness whose memories were recovered through prayer counselling could corroborate complaint
5. › Whether failure to consider evidence of character witnesses constituted error of law

Quick Take

Section 48A of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth) entrenches the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction such that Territory legislation (including s 46 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989) cannot limit appeals to questions of law only. The generalia specialibus non derogant principle does not apply where the general provision is entrenched by Commonwealth statute and the specific provision is a Territory enactment. Evidence of memories recovered through prayer counselling sessions requires great caution and cannot be treated as reliable corroboration without independent verification.