ACL Cases 2025

Question 1

Adelaide Jehovah v Cth

Answer 1

s 116 (freedom of religion), s 51(vi) (defence power), s 51(xxxix) (incidental power): The government can limit freedoms in times of war if national security is at stake.

Question 2

Air Caledonie v Cth

Answer 2

s 51(ii) (taxation), s 55 (laws imposing taxation must deal only with tax): A charge labeled as a “fee” will be recognized as a tax if it meets taxation criteria under the Constitution.

Question 3

Airlines of NSW v NSW (No 2)

Answer 3

s 51(i) (trade and commerce), s 109 (inconsistency): Federal aviation laws override conflicting State laws, ensuring national aviation standards.

Question 4

Al-Kateb v Godwin

Answer 4

s 51(xix) (aliens): The government can indefinitely detain unlawful non-citizens when no country will accept them, emphasizing the limited role of implied human rights protections.

Question 5

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co (“Engineers Case”)

Answer 5

s 51(xxxv) (conciliation and arbitration), s 107 (saving State powers), s 109 (inconsistency): The case established a literal approach to constitutional interpretation, strengthening federal powers.

Question 6

Attorney General (Cth) v The Queen (“Boilermakers’ Case”)

Answer 6

Chapter III, s 71 (judicial power), s 72 (judicial appointments): Federal courts cannot mix judicial and non-judicial functions, affirming the separation of judicial power.

Question 7

Attorney General (WA) (Ex rel Ansett Transport) v Australian National Airlines

Answer 7

s 51(i) (trade and commerce), s 92 (interstate trade freedom), s 122 (territories power), s 51(xx) (corporations): The Cth can regulate national airlines, overriding State restrictions, and free trade guarantees under s 92 do not prevent creating a unified airline system.

Question 8

Australian Capital Television v Cth

Answer 8

ss 7 & 24 (representative government): Implied freedom of political communication ensures public access to political messages essential for democracy.

Question 9

Australian Communist Party v Cth (“Communist Party Case”)

Answer 9

s 51(vi) (defence power): The government cannot outlaw political parties without proper justification; judicial oversight protects against arbitrary national security legislation.

Question 10

Bank of NSW v Cth

Answer 10

s 92 (freedom of interstate trade), s 51(xiii) (banking): Federal laws regulating banks must respect interstate trade freedom.

Question 11

Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs

Answer 11

Chapter III, s 71 (judicial power), s 51(vi) (defence power): Dangerous criminals can be detained post-sentence for public safety, provided it is not punitive.

Question 12

Brown v Tasmania

Answer 12

ss 7 & 24 (representative government): Laws restricting political protests must be reasonable and not excessively impede free political communication.

Question 13

Burns v Corbett

Answer 13

s 75(iv) (interstate disputes), s 77(iii) (State courts and federal jurisdiction): State tribunals cannot handle interstate disputes, maintaining judicial consistency.

Question 14

NSW v Cth (“Work Choices Case”) (2006)

Answer 14

s 51(xx) (corporations), s 109 (inconsistency): Federal laws can regulate corporations and override State laws, limiting the scope of State powers.

Question 15

NZYQ v Immigration & Anor [2023]

Answer 15

s 51(xix) (aliens), Chapter III: The government cannot indefinitely detain individuals who cannot be sent elsewhere without breaching judicial power limits.

Question 16

Pape v Commissioner of Taxation

Answer 16

s 61 (executive power), s 81 (consolidated revenue): The Cth can spend money in emergencies but requires constitutional authority for other expenditures.

Question 17

Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration (2016)

Answer 17

s 51(xix) (aliens), s 61 (executive), s 51(xxix) (external affairs): Asylum seekers can be sent overseas for processing under valid laws, managing immigration effectively.

Question 18

Polyukhovich v Cth (“War Crimes Act Case”)

Answer 18

s 51(xxix) (external affairs): Australia can legislate to punish historical international crimes under its external affairs power.

Question 19

R v Burgess; ex parte Henry

Answer 19

s 51(xxix) (external affairs): International agreements enable the Cth to legislate on domestic matters aligned with treaty obligations.

Question 20

R v Foster (1949)

Answer 20

s 51(i) (trade and commerce), s 51(xxix) (external affairs): Federal regulation of ships for international purposes aligns with external affairs and trade powers.

Question 21

R v Kirby; ex parte Boilermakers (1956)

Answer 21

Chapter III, s 71 (judicial power), s 72 (judicial appointments): Federal courts must exercise only judicial power, preserving the separation of powers.

Question 22

Ruddock v Vadarlis (“Tampa Case”) (2001)

Answer 22

s 61 (executive), s 51(xix) (aliens), s 51(xxvii) (immigration): The government can exercise executive power to prevent non-citizens’ unauthorized entry.

Question 23

Thomas v Mowbray

Answer 23

s 51(vi) (defence power), Chapter III: Preventive orders for suspected terrorists are valid if administered through judicial processes.

Question 24

Thoms v Cth (2022)

Answer 24

s 51(xix) (aliens), s 51(xxvi) (race power): Indigenous Australians are constitutionally distinct and cannot be treated as non-citizens for deportation purposes.

Question 25

Unions NSW v NSW (2019)

Answer 25

ss 7 & 24 (representative government): Political funding rules must not unfairly silence groups, preserving the implied freedom of political communication.

Question 26

Welsbach Light Co v Cth (1916)

Answer 26

s 51(vi) (defence power): Federal regulation of businesses during wartime is valid if it serves national interests.

Question 27

Williams (No 1)

Answer 27

s 61 (executive power): The executive cannot spend money without explicit parliamentary authorization and connection to a constitutional head of power.

Question 28

Williams (No 2)

Answer 28

s 81 (consolidated revenue): Parliamentary authorization for spending must also align with a constitutional power.

Question 29

Work Health Authority v Outback Ballooning (2019)

Answer 29

s 109 (inconsistency), s 51(i) (trade and commerce): Federal aviation safety laws override conflicting territorial safety laws.

Question 30

Chu Kheng Lim v Immigration

Answer 30

Chapter III, s 51(xix) (aliens): Detention of asylum seekers is valid if administrative, not punitive, respecting judicial power under Chapter III.

Question 31

Cole v Whitfield (“Tasmanian Lobster Case”)

Answer 31

s 92 (freedom of interstate trade): State laws are valid if they do not shield local businesses from competition but serve legitimate objectives like environmental protection.

Question 32

Cth v Tasmania (“Tasmanian Dam Case”)

Answer 32

s 51(xxix) (external affairs): The federal government can stop State projects conflicting with international obligations like World Heritage site protection.

Question 33

Davis v Cth

Answer 33

s 51(xxxix) (incidental power): The government can regulate national celebrations but cannot unreasonably limit public use of common symbols or words.

Question 34

Defence Papers Case (1980)

Answer 34

s 51(vi) (defence power), s 61 (executive power), s 51(xxxix) (incidental): National security justifies withholding defence documents from public view.

Question 35

Elliott v Cth (1936)

Answer 35

s 51(ii) (taxation power), s 51(xxxix) (incidental), s 99 (no Cth preference): Federal budgeting decisions are given broad support, ensuring fiscal stability.

Question 36

Farey v Burvett

Answer 36

s 51(vi) (defence power): During wartime, the Federal Government can impose price controls to support the war effort.

Question 37

Fortescue Metals v Cth

Answer 37

s 51(ii) (taxation), s 99 (no preference clause): The Cth can tax large corporations without violating federal fairness provisions.

Question 38

Hume v Palmer

Answer 38

s 109 (inconsistency): Federal laws override conflicting State laws, rendering the inconsistent parts of State laws invalid.

Question 39

International Finance Trust Company v NSW Crime Commission (2009)

Answer 39

Chapter III, s 77(iii) (federal jurisdiction): Courts must remain fair and independent, rejecting automatic compliance with government directives.

Question 40

Joseph v Colonial Treasurer (1918)

Answer 40

s 51(ii) (taxation), s 90 (customs and excise), s 51(xxxvii) (referral of powers): States can collect funds under valid laws within constitutional limits.

Question 41

Kable

Answer 41

Chapter III, s 71 (judicial power), s 77(iii) (State courts with federal jurisdiction): State laws cannot undermine courts’ independence or fair trial principles.

Question 42

Lange v ABC

Answer 42

ss 7 & 24 (representative government): Political communication is protected to ensure informed public participation in representative government, but it is not absolute.

Question 43

LibertyWorks Inc v Cth (2021)

Answer 43

ss 7 & 24 (representative government), s 51(xxix) (external affairs), s 51(xxxix) (incidental): Disclosure rules for foreign-backed groups are valid to ensure electoral transparency.

Question 44

Lloyd v Wallach (1915)

Answer 44

s 51(vi) (defence power): Federal measures under the defence power will receive judicial backing if they align with constitutional boundaries.

Question 45

Marcus Clark v Cth (1952)

Answer 45

s 51(vi) (defence power), s 51(xxxi) (just terms acquisition): Federal property acquisitions for defence purposes are valid if conducted within constitutional constraints.

Question 46

Matthews v Chicory (1938)

Answer 46

s 51(ii) (taxation), s 90 (customs and excise): Charges recognized as taxes are valid under the Constitution if they meet taxation criteria.

Question 47

Melbourne Corporation v Cth

Answer 47

s 51(xiii) (banking power), implied federalism principles: Federal laws cannot interfere with the essential functions of State governments, preserving the federal balance of power.

Question 48

NSW v Cth (“Seas and Submerged Lands Case”) (1975)

Answer 48

s 51(xxix) (external affairs): Federal control over seas and seabeds around Australia is valid under external affairs power.