Roles of the High Court
Research guide to assist Year 10 Civics students in researching the roles of the High Court, including several case samples.
Section 76: Additional Original Jurisdiction
"The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter:
- arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation;
- arising under any laws made by the Parliament;
- of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;
- relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws of different States."
Vanderstock & ANOR v the State of Victoria (2023)
- High Court of Australia. (2023, October 18). Vanderstock & Anor v State of Victoria [2023] HCA 30. https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2023/hca-30-2023-10-18.pdfJudgement summary for High Court case Vanderstock & Anor v State of Victoria [2023] HCA 30.
- Byrne, E. (2023, October 18). Victorian electric car owners win High Court challenge against controversial tax. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-18/high-court-judgement-on-victorian-ev-drivers-tax/102989942The High Court has thrown out a controversial Victorian tax on electric cars which applies to zero and low-emission vehicles.
- Pelly, M. (2023, October 18). High Court’s EV decision threatens state taxes. https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/high-court-rejects-victoria-tax-on-evs-20231017-p5eczeThe High Court’s rejection of the Victorian government’s tax on electric vehicles opens the way for immediate challenges to a raft of other state levies, including billions in mining royalties, luxury cars and livestock sales.
- Weis, L. K. (2024, March 8). Vanderstock v Victoria: Fiscal federalism meets environmental constitutionalism? Journal of Environmental Law, 36(2), 253–264. https://academic.oup.com/jel/article/36/2/253/7624612This analysis critically examines the High Court of Australia’s recent decision in Vanderstock & Anor v The State of Victoria [2023] HCA 30 as an instance of environmental impact litigation (‘EIL’).
Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2023, March 30). High Court case tests legitimacy of Victoria’s electric vehicle tax [TV series episode]. In 7.30. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Electric Chris [Chris Vanderstock]. (2021, September 16). Why I lodged a High Court Challenge to Victoria's Electric Vehicle Tax [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH33TS8I3D8
Love & Thoms v the Commonwealth of Australia (2020)
- High Court of Australia. (2020, February 11). Love v Commonwealth of Australia; Thoms v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] HCA 3. https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-3-2020-02-11.pdfJudgement summary for High Court case Love v Commonwealth of Australia; Thoms v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] HCA 3
- Rule of Law Education Centre. (n.d.). Case Note: Controversy regarding High Court decision interpreting Constitution. https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/case-studies/love-and-thoms/Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3 (‘Love and Thoms’) was a historic High Court decision which considered the scope of the ‘aliens’ power in respect of two non-citizen Aboriginal Australians.
- Smith, M. (2021, March 17). The divided decision in Love v Commonwealth - an analysis of Justice Gageler’s and Justice Edelman’s approaches to constitutional interpretation. https://www.auspublaw.org/blog/2021/03/the-divided-decision-in-love-v-commonwealtIn the recent case of Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth (2020) (‘Love’), the High Court grappled with issues surrounding what it means to belong to the Australian political community, and the difficulty of interpreting the meaning of words in the Constitution when faced with unique and unprecedented circumstances.
- Bryson, J. P. (2020, March 30). Citizens, aliens, race and the High Court. https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/uncategorized/citizens-aliens-race-and-the-high-court/The decision of the High Court of Australia in Love v The Commonwealth of Australia: Thoms v The Commonwealth of Australia on February 11 has gone straight to the pantheon of Australian folklore and journalistic obsession as if it were a High Court decision in some way establishing that Aborigines are entitled to immunity from ever being removed from Australia for whatever cause, an immunity which non-Aboriginal Australians do not share. This is not really what it establishes, and not really what it was about.
- Keim, S. (2020, June 3). Reflections on Love and Thoms v The Commonwealth. https://www.higginschambers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Love-and-Thoms.pdfNotes prepared for a talk to a national seminar organised by the Australian Association for
Constitutional Law and the Law School of Monash University. Overview and arguments.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2020, February 11). High Court rules Indigenous people cannot be deported [TV series episode]. In ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Audiovisual Recordings
High Court of Australia. (2020). Recent AV recordings. https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/recent-av-recordings
9 March 2022 - Thoms v the Commonwealth of Australia
14-16 February 2023 - Vanderstock & ANOR v the State of Victoria
7-8 November 2023 - NZYQ v the Minister of Home Affairs
NZYQ v the Minister of Home Affairs (2023)
- High Court of Australia. (2023, November 28). NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2023] HCA 37. https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2023/hca-37-2023-11-28.pdfJudgment summary for High Court case NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2023] HCA 37.
- Worthington, B. (2024, April 14). Decades after a boat arrived in Australia, the government suddenly found itself with an immigration detention system in disarray. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-14/nzyq-immigration-detention-timeline-high-court-goverThe message arrived with lawyers in the early days of December last year. Sent to the federal government and the representatives of the Rohingya man known publicly as NZYQ, the High Court was contacting those who appeared in court to inform them it had made corrections to a landmark ruling.
Provides brief summary of Al-Kateb case in 2004. - University of Melbourne. (n.d.). What happens to stateless people in Australia after the High Court ruling in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs? https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/4818858/Stateless-This factsheet provides an overview of the decision of the High Court of Australia in
the case NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (NZYQ)
and its impact on stateless people in Australia. - John, L., Langbien, J., & Verma, S. (2023, December 6). Liberty, punishment and the power to detain: the fallout from NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. https://www.auspublaw.org/blog/2023/12/liberty-punishment-and-theThe High Court adjourned for 16 minutes before the Chief Justice declared that ‘at least a majority of the Court’ considered that the detention of the plaintiff was unlawful. With that, the High Court overturned an almost 20-year legal precedent established in Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) that had permitted the Executive Government to detain non-citizens indefinitely.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2024, April 17). Australia’s indefinite detention battle explained [TV series episode]. In ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2024, March 19). Why the government is under pressure over immigration detention [TV series episode]. In 7.30. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Related Case: Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37
- High Court of Australia. (2004, August 6). Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37. https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/aushc/2004/en/19025?prevDestination=search&prevPath=/search?keywords=Al-Kateb+v.+Godwin&sort=score&order=desc&result=result-19025-enCase summary and judgment of Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37.
- Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2004, August 6). Govt wins indefinite detention appeal. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-08-06/govt-wins-indefinite-detention-appeal/2021214The Federal Government has won its High Court challenge to keep failed asylum seekers in detention, even when they cannot be deported.
- Zagor, M. (2006). Uncertainty and exclusion: Detention of aliens and the High Court. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLawRw/2006/5.htmlIn a series of judgments in August and October 2004, the High Court found that the Migration Act 1958 ('the Act') unambiguously provides for the indefinite detention of unlawful non-citizens, and that such a law is constitutionally valid. In doing so, a majority on the High Court arguably rewrote the rule book on the operation of Chapter III of the Constitution, undermining the majority judgment in Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration in the process.
Federal Law Review 5; 34(1) - Sydney Morning Herald. (2007, October 27). Escape from a life in limbo. https://www.smh.com.au/national/escape-from-a-life-in-limbo-20071027-gdrg3g.htmlSmoking a cigarette in the back yard of a Canberra architect's office last Wednesday was a young man with an old face who carries one of the most famous names in the legal history of this country: Ahmed al-Kateb. This week his incredible story reached something like a happy ending when he was issued a card carrying the words, "Permitted to remain in Australia indefinitely."
Tandberg, R. (2004, August 7). [Cartoon about Al-Kateb v Godwin High Court decision]. The Age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kateb_v_Godwin