Peacock v Newtown Marrickville and General Co-operative Building Society No 4 Limited [1943] HCA 13

Dised Ly v Jenkins

67 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 25

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

PEACOCK : 5 : : a 3 . APPLICANT ;

AND

NEWTOWN MARRICKVILLE AND GENERAL CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY No. }ResponpEnv. 4 LIMITED . 3 : : . 'i J

Federal Judiciary—Judicial power—National Security (Contracts Adjustment) H. C. or A. Regulations—Investing State Courts with Federal jurisdiction—Validity—Power 1943. to invest by regulation—Whether confined to limits of State court's jurisdiction— | 7 The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 51 (vi.), 77 (iii.)—Judiciary Act SYDNEY, 1903-1940 (No. 6 of 1903—No. 50 of 1940), secs. 39 (2), 40, 41—National Security May 3, 4. Act 1939-1940 (No. 15 of 1939—No. 44 of 1940), sec. 5 — National Security yim: nourne, (Contracts Adjustment) Regulations (S.R. 1942 No. 65—1943 No. 88), regs. une 99. 3, 4, 44, 5, 9, 9A, 20. ies

Lat Constitutional Law—Defence—National Security (Contracts Adjustment) Regulations— Ra

Whether within power—The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), sec. 51 (vi.)— Wi National Security (Contracts Adjustment) Regulations (S.R. 1942 No. 65— 1943 No. 88).

The National Security (Contracts Adjustment) Regulations are invalid as the powers which they purport to confer upon State courts are judicial in their nature and the National Security Act 1939-1940* does not authorize the making of regulations investing State courts with Federal jurisdiction. Per Latham CJ., Starke and McTiernan JJ.: Parliament can authorize the making of regulations for investing State courts with Federal jurisdiction. Per Latham C.J. and McTiernan J.: In investing a State court with Federal jurisdiction Parliament is not confined to the limits of that court's jurisdiction under State law.

Le Mcsurier v. Connor, (1929) 42 C.L.R. 481, considered. Moses v. Parker ; Ex parte Moses, (1896) A.C. 245, distinguished.