Australian Court System

Question 1

Define the origins of Australia’s court system.

Answer 1

Due to British colonisation, Australia has adopted the common law system - a court system that operates on the doctrine of precedent.

In the context of law, a decision made by the higher court will influence the decisions made by its lower courts, given its similar circumstances - ‘stare decisis’ which means to stand with a previous decision.

Australia’s application of common law is displayed through the combative nature that is inherent in adversarial trials.

A battle between the parties in pursuit of revealing the truth of a case.

Question 2

Further elaborate on the the idea of the doctrine of the precedent.

Answer 2

The following three elements ensure the doctrine of precedent is effective:

1. Ratio decidendi (‘rationale for the decision’) of a judge in higher courts with appellate jurisdiction (ability to hear the appeals from lower courts) is capable of creating common law - precedent.
2. The precedents of higher courts bind (to be conformed by) lower courts within the same court hierarchy - binding precedent.
3. Higher courts may be persuaded by the ratio decidendi (reasoning of a judge for a precedent) of lower courts - persuasive precedent.

Question 3

Why are methods of statutory interpretation used?

Answer 3

There may be ambiguity when interpreting the law. The following three ‘rules’ of interpretation are used to approach unclear statutes, so that they may declare the law:

1. Literal Rule
2. Golden Rule
3. Mischief Rule

Question 4

Literal Rule

Answer 4

The assumption that the act says what it means and means what it says.

Example: Uber vs ATO (2017)
Disputed in the Federal Court of Australia:
1. Uber argued for a ‘trade definition’ of taxi travel - a licenced service with special conditions such as kerbside; so that they would evade GST taxation.

2. ATO argued for an ‘ordinary definition’ of taxi travel - vehicle available for hire, to transport passengers; so that Uber would classify as taxi travel and therefore be applied GST taxation just like other taxis.

The Federal Court read the GST Act literally, giving the words ‘taxi travel’ their ordinary definition, classifying Uber as a ‘taxi travel’ service.

Question 5

Golden Rule

Answer 5

Enables statutes to keep pace with increasingly rapid technological and social change.

Example: The word ‘taxicab’ was historically referred to as ‘a one horse vehicle for hire’. If courts were to use a literal interpretation, there would be no ‘taxi travel’ services (taxis & Ubers), despite thousands of motorised vehicles for hire.

Question 6

Mischief Rule

Answer 6

If the literal and golden rules fail to achieve a just outcome, or prevent absurd interpretations, courts will ask:

1. “What was the parliament’s purpose in passing this Act?”
2. “What mischief (wrong) was parliament intending to prevent, by passing this Act?”

Example: Courts may refer to sources outside the Act itself for guidance, such as Hansard - a record of parliamentary speeches and debates. To make an ‘intentionalist’ or ‘purposive’ interpretation, gives effect to parliament’s original intention.