Ruddick v Commonwealth of Australia

[2022] HCATrans 023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S151 of 2021

B e t w e e n -
JOHN RUDDICK
Plaintiff
and
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Defendant

KIEFEL CJ
GAGELER J
KEANE J
GORDON J
EDELMAN J
STEWARD J
GLEESON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 9 MARCH 2022, AT 10.04 AM

KIEFEL CJ: This special case was heard in Canberra by video connection to Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne on 15 February 2022 by a court constituted by Justices Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and me. By majority the Court orders that the questions of law stated for the opinion of the Full Court in the special case filed on 3 December 2021 be answered as follows:

Are any of items 7, 9, 11 and 14 of Sch 1 to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Act 2021 (Cth) invalid, in whole or in part, on the ground that they infringe the implied freedom of political communication?
Answer:
In relation to items 11 and 14 of Sch 1 to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Act 2021 (Cth), the answer is “No”. Otherwise unnecessary to answer.
Are any of items 7, 9, 11 and 14 of Sch 1 to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Act 2021 (Cth) invalid, in whole or in part, on the ground that they preclude the direct choice by the people of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, contrary to ss 7 and 24 of the Constitution?
Answer:
In relation to items 11 and 14 of Sch 1 to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Act 2021 (Cth), the answer is “No”. Otherwise unnecessary to answer.
In light of the answers to Questions 1 and 2, what relief, if any, should issue?
Answer:
None.
Who should pay the costs of and incidental to this special case?
Answer:
The plaintiff.

I publish that order.

Reasons for judgment will be published at a later date.

AT 10.06 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the dispute between Mr. Ruddick and the Commonwealth of Australia concerning the validity of a notice issued under section 102 of the *Customs Act 1901* (Cth). Mr. Ruddick sought judicial review of this notice, which had the effect of preventing the importation of certain goods.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the notice issued under section 102 of the *Customs Act* was invalid for failing to comply with the requirements of section 46(1) of the *Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977* (Cth). Specifically, the Court had to determine if the notice constituted a "decision" to which section 46(1) applied, and if so, whether the Commonwealth had provided adequate reasons for that decision.

The Court reasoned that a notice issued under section 102 of the *Customs Act* is a decision of an administrative character made under an enactment, and therefore falls within the scope of section 46(1) of the *Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act*. The Court held that the Commonwealth had failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision, as required by section 46(1)(a), and that the notice was therefore invalid. The Court found that the reasons provided were insufficient to enable Mr. Ruddick to understand the basis of the decision and to consider whether to seek a review of it.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the notice issued under section 102 of the *Customs Act*, and remitted the matter to the Federal Court for further proceedings consistent with the High Court's judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established