Trust Company of Australia Limited (trading as Stockland Property Management) v Skiwing Pty Ltd (trading as Café Tiffany's)

(2006) 66 NSWLR 77; [2006] NSWCA 185

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Judicial power of Commonwealth
3. › Investiture of federal jurisdiction in State courts
4. › Whether Administrative Decisions Tribunal a 'court of a State'
5. › Essential features of a 'court' under Chapter III
6. › Whether court must be composed of judges
7. › Commonwealth Constitution, s 77(iii)
8. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 86(2)
1. Trade Practices
2. › Practice and Procedure
3. › Jurisdiction
4. › Whether Administrative Decisions Tribunal has power to determine claims under Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
5. › Whether ADT a 'court of a State' for purposes of s 86(2)
6. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 86(2)
7. › Commonwealth Constitution, s 77(iii)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Tribunals
3. › Administrative Decisions Tribunal
4. › Whether tribunal is a court
5. › Indicia of court status
6. › Composition by judges as essential feature
7. › Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Amendment of pleadings
3. › Late amendment after close of evidence
4. › Discretion to refuse amendment
5. › Whether basis for appellate interference with discretion removed
6. › Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW), s 34

Quick Take

The NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal is not a 'court of a State' within s 77(iii) of the Constitution and cannot be invested with federal jurisdiction under s 86(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) or s 39(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). An essential feature of a 'court' under Chapter III is that it be an institution composed predominantly of judges. State tribunals that are not predominantly composed of judges cannot exercise federal jurisdiction, regardless of how many other indicia of a court they possess. The constitutional expression 'court of a State' imposes a more stringent requirement than the word 'court' in State legislation. Individual divisions of a tribunal cannot be treated as separate institutions for the purpose of this analysis.