The Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia that regulates the structure of the Australian judicial system and confers jurisdiction on Australian federal courts.[1] It is one of the oldest pieces of Australian federal legislation[1] and has been amended over 70 times.[2]

Judiciary Act 1903
Parliament of Australia
  • An Act to make provision for the Exercise of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth
CitationNo. 6, 1903 as amended or No. 6 of 1903
Territorial extentStates and territories of Australia
Royal assent25 August 1903
Commenced25 August 1903
Status: Current legislation

Amongst other things, the Act regulates the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia,[3] confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court of Australia,[4] provides for the right of barristers and solicitors to practice in federal courts, and establishes the Australian Government Solicitor.[5]

The Act

edit

Section 78B of the Act requires Australian courts to ensure that the parties have given notice to the attorneys-general of Australia and of each state before proceeding with any case involving a "matter arising under the Constitution." Each of these governments may then intervene in the case under section 78A of the Act.

Section 78 and 79 of the Act govern the application of state law by Australian federal courts. The two sections borrow verbiage from the American Rules of Decision Act.[6]

See also

edit
edit

References

edit
  1. ^ a b Australian Law Reform Commission (2001). The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth: A Review of the Judiciary Act 1903 and Related Legislation (Report). para. 1.1. Retrieved 18 May 2021.
  2. ^ Australian Law Reform Commission (2001). The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth: A Review of the Judiciary Act 1903 and Related Legislation (Report). para. 1.2. Retrieved 18 May 2021.
  3. ^ Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 30
  4. ^ Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
  5. ^ Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 55J
  6. ^ Priestley, Lancelot J. "A Federal Common Law in Australia?" South Carolina Law Review 46, no. 5 (1995): 17.