Federal and Territorial Courts

Extract

The decision of the High Court in Capital T.V. and Appliances Pty Ltd v. Falconer makes a further contribution to the step by step effort of the Court to develop a coherent doctrine with respect to the place of the Commonwealth Territories in the federal system. It goes some way towards answering the questions that arise with respect to the jurisdiction that may be exercised by territorial courts on the one hand, and on the other hand, the jurisdiction that may be exercised by federal courts, and State courts invested with federal jurisdiction, in respect of matters having a relationship with a Territory.

The matters decided were simply that the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory is not a federal court, but is a territorial court established by virtue of the powers of the Parliament under section 122 of the Constitution, nor is it a court exercising federal jurisdiction. The Court did not find it necessary to decide whether the tenure of office of the judges of the Supreme Court met the requirements of section 72 of the Constitution with respect to federal courts. It held that, even assuming that those requirements were met, the Supreme Court was not a federal court. This conclusion was based on the intention of Parliament, as appearing from the words used to create the Court and the scope of the jurisdiction conferred on it. Further, it was held that the only courts “exercising federal jurisdiction”, apart from federal courts, are State courts invested with federal jurisdiction.