View source for High Court of Australia

{{Short description|Apex court of Australia}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2020}}
{{Use Australian English|date=July 2016}}
{{Infobox court
| court_name = High Court of Australia
| image = Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
| imagesize = 150px
| image2 = High Court of Australia (6769096715).jpg
| imagesize2 = 250px
| caption2 = The [[High Court of Australia Building, Canberra|High Court building]], situated on the shore of [[Lake Burley Griffin]], [[Canberra]]
| established = {{start date|df=yes|1903|08|25}}
| jurisdiction = [[Australia]]
| location = [[Canberra]], [[Australian Capital Territory]]
| coordinates = {{coord|35|17|56|S|149|08|09|E|display=inline,title}}
| type = Appointed by the [[Governor-General of Australia|governor-general]] on the advice of the [[Attorney-General of Australia|attorney-general]] following the approval of the [[Prime Minister of Australia|prime minister]] and [[Cabinet of Australia|Cabinet]]
| authority = ''[[Constitution of Australia|Australian Constitution]]'' s 71
| appealsfrom = {{bulleted list|[[States and territories of Australia|State and territory]] supreme courts (appeal courts or full courts) | [[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court (full court)]] | [[Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia|Federal Circuit and Family Court (full court)]]}}
| terms = Mandatory retirement at age 70<ref>{{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|coaca430|Australian Constitution|72}}</ref>
| positions = 7, by statute<!-- number of positions/seats on court -->
| website = {{official URL}}<!-- official website -->
| chiefjudgetitle = [[Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia]]<!-- title of the top judge such as chief justice/senior judge -->
| chiefjudgename = [[Stephen Gageler]]<!-- current chief's name -->
| termstart = {{start date|2023|11|06|df=y}}<!-- year current chief became chief -->
| termend = <!-- year term for current chief as chief ends, if applicable -->
| chiefjudgetitle2 = <!-- title of the second top judge if applicable-->
| chiefjudgename2 = <!-- current deputy chief's name -->
| termstart2 = <!-- year current deputy chief became chief -->
| termend2 = <!-- year term of current chief ends if applicable -->
| chiefjudgetitle3 = <!-- title of the second top judge if applicable-->
| chiefjudgename3 = <!-- current deputy chief's name -->
| termstart3 = <!-- year current deputy chief became chief -->
| termend3 = <!-- year term for current deputy chief as chief ends, if applicable -->
| division_map = <!-- image for a map of division separations, if applicable -->
| division_map_size = <!-- size of division map above, if applicable -->
| division_map_alt = <!-- alt text for division map above, if applicable -->
}}

{{Australian court hierarchy}}

The '''High Court of Australia''' is the [[Supreme court|apex court]] of the [[Australian legal system]].<ref>{{cite web |date=24 May 2012 |title=Courts |url=https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Courts~67 |access-date=4 May 2013 |publisher=[[Australian Bureau of Statistics]] |quote=The High Court of Australia is the highest court of appeal |archive-date=25 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200925142359/https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Courts~67 |url-status=live}}</ref> It exercises [[Original jurisdiction|original]] and [[appellate jurisdiction]] on matters specified in the [[Constitution of Australia]] and supplementary legislation.

The High Court was established following the passage of the [[Judiciary Act 1903|''Judiciary Act 1903'' (Cth)]].<ref name="Judiciary Act">{{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|ja1903112|Judiciary Act 1903}}</ref> Its authority [[Chapter III court|derives from chapter III]] of the Australian Constitution, which vests it (and other courts the Parliament creates) with the [[judiciary|judicial power]] of the Commonwealth.<ref>{{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|coaca430|Constitution of Australia|71}}</ref> Its internal processes are governed by the ''High Court of Australia Act 1979'' (Cth).<ref name="High Court of Australia Act" />

The court consists of seven justices, including a [[Chief Justice of Australia|chief justice]], currently [[Stephen Gageler]]. Justices of the High Court are appointed by the [[Governor-General of Australia|governor-general]] on the formal [[Advice (constitutional law)|advice]] of the [[Attorney-General of Australia|attorney-general]] following the approval of the [[Prime Minister of Australia|prime minister]] and [[Cabinet of Australia|Cabinet]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Davis |first=Cassie |date=2021-11-10 |title=Judicial Appointments |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2021/November/Judicial_Appointments |access-date= |website=Parliament of Australia |series=FlagPost |language=en-AU}}</ref> They are appointed permanently until their mandatory retirement at age 70, unless they retire earlier.

Typically, the court operates by receiving applications for appeal from parties in a process called [[Special leave in the High Court of Australia|special leave]]. If a party's application is accepted, the court will proceed to a full hearing, usually with oral and written submissions from both parties. After conclusion of the hearing, the result is decided by the court. The special leave process does not apply in situations where the court elects to exercise its original jurisdiction; however, the court typically delegates its original jurisdiction to Australia's inferior courts.

The court has resided in [[Canberra]] since 1980, following the construction of a purpose-built [[High Court of Australia Building|High Court building]], located in the [[Parliamentary Triangle]] and overlooking [[Lake Burley Griffin]].<ref name=AHD>{{cite AHD|105557|High Court of Australia, King Edward Tce, Parkes, ACT, Australia |fn=8/01/000/0537 |date=22 June 2004 |access-date=20 May 2020}}
</ref> 

Sittings of the court previously rotated between state capitals, particularly [[Melbourne]] and [[Sydney]], and the court continues to regularly sit outside Canberra.

== Role ==

The High Court exercises both [[Original jurisdiction|original]] and [[appellate jurisdiction]].

Sir [[Owen Dixon]] said on his swearing in as Chief Justice of Australia in 1952:<ref name="Dixon_cj_speech">{{cite journal |last=Dixon |first=Owen |author-link=Owen Dixon |year=1952 |title=Address on being sworn in as Chief Justice |journal=[[Commonwealth Law Reports]] |volume=85 |pages=XIII}} Not online.</ref>
<blockquote>
The High Court's jurisdiction is divided in its exercise between constitutional and federal cases which loom so largely in the public eye, and the great body of litigation between man and man, or even man and government, which has nothing to do with the Constitution, and which is the principal preoccupation of the court
</blockquote>The broad jurisdiction of the High Court means that it has an important role in Australia's legal system.<ref name="Barwick_keystone_intro">{{cite book |last=Bennett |first=J. M. |title=Keystone of the Federal Arch |publisher=Australian Government Publishing Service |year=1980 |isbn=0-642-04866-5 |location=Canberra |chapter=Foreword by Sir Garfield Barwick}}</ref>

=== Original jurisdiction ===

Its original jurisdiction is determined by sections 75 and 76 of Australia's Constitution. Section 75 confers original jurisdiction in all matters:
{{ordered list|type=i
| arising under any treaty
| affecting [[consulate general|consuls]] or other representatives of other countries
| in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party
| between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State
| in which a writ of [[mandamus]] or [[prohibition (writ)|prohibition]] or an [[injunction]] is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth.
}}Section 76 provides that Parliament may confer original jurisdiction in relation to matters:
{{ordered list|type=i
| arising under the constitution or involving its interpretation
| arising under any laws made by the Parliament
| of [[admiralty law|admiralty]] and maritime jurisdiction
| relating to the same subject matter claimed under the laws of different states.
}}

Constitutional matters, referred to in section 76(i), were conferred on the High Court by section 30 of the ''[[Judiciary Act 1903]]''.<ref name="Judiciary Act" /> While the conferral of constitutional matters might be removed by amending the Judiciary Act, section 75(iii) (suing the Commonwealth) and section 75(iv) (conflicts between states) are broad enough that many constitutional matters would still be within original jurisdiction. The original constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is now well established; the [[Australian Law Reform Commission]] has described the reference to constitutional matters in section 76 rather than in section 75 as "an odd fact of history".<ref name="ALRC_92">{{cite web |author=Australian Law Reform Commission |title=The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/92/ch12.html#Heading7 |access-date=19 March 2006 |work=Australian Legal Information Institute |archive-date=20 September 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060920110235/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/92/ch12.html#Heading7 |url-status=live}}</ref> The [[Australian Constitutional Convention 1998|1998 Constitutional Convention]] recommended an amendment to the constitution to prevent the possibility of the jurisdiction being removed by Parliament.

The word "matter" in sections 75 and 76 has been understood to mean that the High Court is unable to give [[advisory opinion]]s.<ref>{{Cite web |date=16 May 2016 |title=Advisory opinions and the rule of law |url=https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/advisory-opinions-rule-law/ |website=Rule of Law Education Centre |language=en-AU}}</ref><ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|20|1921|litigants=Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts|parallelcite=(1921) 29 CLR 257|link=Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts}}.</ref>

===Appellate jurisdiction===

The court is empowered by section 73 of the Constitution to hear appeals from the supreme courts of the states and territories; as well as any court exercising federal jurisdiction.<ref group="Note">Examples of courts exercising federal jurisdiction include the [[Federal Court of Australia]], and the [[Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia]]</ref> It may also hear appeals of decisions made in an exercise of its own original jurisdiction.<ref group="Note">e.g. such as a decision made by a single justice of the High Court exercising its original jurisdiction</ref>

The High Court's appellate jurisdiction is limited by the ''[[Judiciary Act 1903|Judiciary Act]]'', which requires special leave to be granted before the hearing of an appeal. [[Special leave in the High Court of Australia|Special leave]] may only be granted where a question of law is raised which is of public importance, involves a conflict between courts or "is in the interests of the administration of justice".

Since November 2023, the High Court has adopted the practice of deciding the majority of special leave applications on the basis of written submissions only. In adopting this practice, the High Court also made the decision to publish decisions in special leave applications on its public website rather than in open court.<ref>{{cite web |last=Pelly |first=Michael |date=23 November 2023 |title=High Court: This $25k-a-hearing barrister is happy to be losing money |url=https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/this-25k-a-hearing-barrister-is-happy-to-be-losing-money-20231122-p5em1l |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250114102250/https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/this-25k-a-hearing-barrister-is-happy-to-be-losing-money-20231122-p5em1l |archive-date=14 January 2025 |access-date=14 January 2025 |work=Financial Review |publisher=Australian Financial Review}}</ref>

===Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council===

Appeals to the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council|Privy Council]] in London were a notable controversy when the Constitution was drafted. Section 74 of the Constitution, as it was put to voters, stated that there would be no appeals to the Privy Council in any matter involving the interpretation of the federal or state constitutions.<ref group="Note">Excepting for situations in which the controversy involved the interests of some other dominion.</ref><ref>See for example {{cite web |title='' Australasian Federation Enabling Act'' 1899 No 2 (NSW) |url=http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/acts/1899-2.pdf |publisher=NSW Parliamentary Council's Office |access-date=14 November 2016 |archive-date=14 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161114165927/http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/acts/1899-2.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>

However, section 74 as enacted by the Imperial Parliament instead only prohibited appeals on constitutional matters when they related to the respective powers of the states and the Commonwealth ("''inter se''" matters),<ref>{{Cite web |title=''Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act'' 1900 (Imp) |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1900/12/pdfs/ukpga_19000012_en.pdf |access-date=14 November 2016 |archive-date=8 May 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180508141128/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1900/12/pdfs/ukpga_19000012_en.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref> and even then allowed the High Court discretion to waive the prohibition by certifying cases as being approriate for appeal to the Privy Council. The High Court has used this discretion only once, in 1912,<ref group="Note">''[[Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth)]]'' [1912] HCA 94, (1912) 15 <abbr>CLR</abbr> 182. The court was equally divided prior to certification being granted.</ref> and in 1985, in [[Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 2)|''Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd'' (No 2)]], it denied certification and further declared that the discretion was "obsolete", that "such limited purpose as it had has long since been spent", and that it was "impossible to suppose" that the Court would ever use it again.<ref name="kirmani no2">{{Cite AustLII|HCA|27|1985|litigants=[[Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 2)]] |parallelcite=(1985) 159 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 461}}. "... the hierarchical relationship between this Court and the Judicial Committee [of the Privy Council] has effectively disappeared... [it] is impossible to suppose that this Court should by granting a s.74 certificate itself revive that relationship in abdication of its responsibility to decide finally questions as to the limits of Commonwealth and State powers, questions having a peculiarly Australian character and being of fundamental concern to the Australian people."</ref>

No certificate was required to appeal constitutional cases not involving ''inter se'' matters, such as in the interpretation of section 92 (relating to the freedom of inter-state commerce), and thus the Privy Council regularly heard appeals against High Court decisions.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2016-10-28 |title=What was the role of the Privy Council? |url=http://cefa.org.au/ccf/what-was-role-privy-council |website=Constitution Education Fund Australia |language=en}}</ref> In some cases the Council acknowledged that the Australian common law had developed differently from English law and thus did not apply its own principles.<ref name="uren">{{Cite AustLII|HCA|21|1967 |litigants=Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren |parallelcite=(1967) 117 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 221}}.</ref><ref name="viro">{{Cite AustLII|HCA|9|1978 |litigants=Viro v The Queen |parallelcite=(1978) 141 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 88}}.</ref><ref name="Gleeson_s74">{{cite web |author=Gleeson, M |author-link=Murray Gleeson |date=2002 |title=The Birth, Life and Death of Section 74 |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_18jun08.pdf |access-date=14 November 2016 |archive-date=11 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161011224905/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_18jun08.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref> Other times it followed English authority, and overruled decisions of the High Court.

This arrangement led to tensions between the High Court and the Privy Council. In ''Parker v The Queen'' (1964), Chief Justice Sir [[Owen Dixon]] led a unanimous judgment rejecting the authority of the [[House of Lords]] decision in ''[[Homicide in English law#Murder|DPP v Smith]]'', writing, "I shall not depart from the law on this matter as we have long since laid it down in this Court and I think that Smith's case should not be used in Australia as authority at all."<ref name="parker">{{Cite AustLII |litigants=Parker v The Queen |year=1963 |court=HCA |num=14 |parallelcite=(1963) 111 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 610}}.</ref> The Privy Council overturned this by enforcing the UK precedent upon the High Court the following year.<ref name="parker appeal">{{cite BAILII |litigants=Parker v The Queen |year=1964 |court=UKPC |num=16 |format=1 |parallelcite=[1964] [[Appeal Cases Law Reports|AC]] 1369}}; {{Cite AustLII|UKPCHCA|1|1964 |parallelcite=(1964) 111 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 665 |courtname=auto |juris=NSW |date=23 March 1964}}.</ref>

Thirteen High Court judges have heard cases as part of the Privy Council. [[Isaac Isaacs|Sir Isaac Isaacs]] is the only judge to have sat on an appeal from the High Court, in 1936 after his retirement as [[Governor-General of Australia]].<ref name="Payne" /> [[Garfield Barwick|Sir Garfield Barwick]] insisted on an amendment to Privy Council procedure to allow dissent;<ref>{{cite web |author=Gleeson, M |author-link=Murray Gleeson |date=2008 |title=The Privy Council – An Australian Perspective |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_18jun08.pdf |access-date=14 November 2016 |archive-date=11 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161011224905/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_18jun08.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref> however, he exercised that capacity only once in an appeal from Guyana to the Privy Council.<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=Her Majesty's Attorney General for Guyana v Nobrega (Guyana) |year=1969 |court=UKPC |num=24 |format=1}}</ref> The appeals mostly related to decisions from other Commonwealth countries, although they occasionally included appeals from the supreme court of an Australian state.<ref name="Brunton" /><ref name="Sydney Council" /><ref name="Caratti" /><ref name="Peinkinna" />

{{columns-list|colwidth=20em|
*[[Samuel Griffith|Sir Samuel Griffith]]<ref name="Brunton">{{cite BAILII |litigants=Brunton v The Acting Commissioner of Stamp Duties for the State of New South Wales (New South Wales) |year=1913 |court=UKPC |num=28 |format=1 |parallelcite=[1913] [[Appeal Cases Law Reports|AC]] 747}}</ref>
*[[Edmund Barton|Sir Edmund Barton]]<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=Odonkor v Kole (Gold Coast Colony) |year=1915 |court=UKPC |num=34 |format=1}}</ref>
*[[Adrian Knox|Sir Adrian Knox]]<ref name="Sydney Council">{{cite BAILII |litigants=The Municipal Council of Sydney v Campbell (New South Wales) |year=1924 |court=UKPC |num=101 |format=1 |parallelcite=[1925] [[Appeal Cases Law Reports|AC]] 338}}</ref>
*[[Isaac Isaacs|Sir Isaac Isaacs]]<ref name="Payne">{{cite BAILII |litigants=Payne v The Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (Australia) |year=1936 |court=UKPC |num=45 |format=1 |parallelcite=[1936] [[Appeal Cases Law Reports|AC]] 497]}}</ref>
*[[George Rich|Sir George Rich]]<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Presidency v The Bombay Trust Corporation, Limited (Bombay) |year=1936 |court=UKPC |num=53 |format=1}}
</ref>
*[[Garfield Barwick|Sir Garfield Barwick]]<ref name="Caratti">{{cite BAILII |litigants=Caratti Holding Co Pty Ltd v Zampatti (Western Australia) |year=1978 |court=UKPC |num=24 |format=1}}</ref>
*[[Douglas Menzies|Sir Douglas Menzies]]<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=Kariapper v S S Wijesinha (Ceylon) |year=1967 |court=UKPC |num=20 |format=1}}</ref>
*[[Alan Taylor (Australian judge)|Sir Alan Taylor]]<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=Peiris v Appu (Ceylon) |year=1968 |court=UKPC |num=5 |format=1 |parallelcite=[1968] [[Appeal Cases Law Reports|AC]] 869}}</ref>
*[[Frank Kitto|Sir Frank Kitto]]<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=Her Majesty's Attorney-General for Dominica v Shillingford (Dominica) |year=1970 |court=UKPC |num=15 |format=1}}</ref> 
*[[Edward McTiernan|Sir Edward McTiernan]]<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=Tek v The Public Prosecutor (Malaysia) |year=1972 |court=UKPC |num=10 |format=1}}</ref>
*[[Victor Windeyer|Sir Victor Windeyer]]<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=Ramcharan v The Queen (Trinidad and Tobago) |year=1972 |court=UKPC |num=9 |format=1 |parallelcite=[1973] [[Appeal Cases Law Reports|AC]] 414}}</ref>
*[[Harry Gibbs|Sir Harry Gibbs]]<ref name="Peinkinna">{{cite BAILII |litigants=The Corporation of the Director of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement v Donald Peinkinna (Queensland) |year=1978 |court=UKPC |num=1 |format=1}}</ref>
*[[Ninian Stephen|Sir Ninian Stephen]]<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=Chin v The Collector of Stamp Duties (Malaysia) |year=1981 |court=UKPC |num=22 |format=1}}</ref>
}}

==== Abolition of Privy Council appeals ====

Section 74 allowed parliament to prevent appeals to the Privy Council. It did so in 1968 with the ''[[Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968]]'', which closed off all appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation.<ref>{{cite web |url-status=dead |url=https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004C06161 |title=Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220195755/https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004C06161 |archive-date=20 December 2016 |website=Federal Register of Legislation }}.</ref> In 1975, the ''[[Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975]]'' closed all routes of appeal from the High Court with the exception of those cases in which High Court issued a certificate of appeal.<ref>{{cite web |url-status=live |url=https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A00255 |title=Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160316143936/https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A00255 |archive-date=16 March 2016 |website=Federal Register of Legislation |date=30 April 1975 }}.</ref>

In 1986, with the passing of the ''[[Australia Act 1986|Australia Acts]]'' by both the British and Commonwealth parliaments,<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/2/enacted/data.htm |title=Australia Act 1986 |website=legislation.gov.uk |access-date=12 April 2020 |archive-date=15 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201115210652/https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/2/enacted/data.htm |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A03181/Html/Text |title=Australia Act 1986 |website=Federal Register of Legislation |access-date=12 April 2020 |archive-date=8 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200808143653/https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A03181/Html/Text |url-status=live}}</ref> appeals to the Privy Council from state supreme courts were closed off, leaving the High Court as the only avenue of appeal.<ref>Australia Act 1986, s 11.</ref> In 2002, Chief Justice [[Murray Gleeson]] said that the "combined effect" of the legislation and the announcement in ''Kirmani'' "has been that section 74 has become a dead letter, and what remains of section 74 after the legislation limiting appeals to the Privy Council will have no further effect".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_griffith2.htm |last=Gleeson |first=Murray |title=The Birth, Life and Death of Section 74 |website=Samuel Griffith Society |date=14 June 2002 |access-date=10 November 2019 |archive-date=20 November 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191120040808/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_griffith2.htm |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Appellate jurisdiction for Nauru===

On 6 September 1976, Australia and [[Nauru]], which was newly-independent from Australia, signed an agreement for the High Court to become Nauru's apex court.<ref group="Note">an amendment to Nauru's constitution was made to allow this (section 57)</ref> It was empowered to hear appeals from the [[Supreme Court of Nauru]] in both criminal and civil cases, but not constitutional matters.<ref>{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|ncaa1976254/sch1.html|Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Nauru relating to Appeals to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of Nauru}}, 6 September 1976</ref> There were a total of five appeals to the High Court under this agreement in the first 40 years of its operation. In 2017, however, this jumped to 13 appeals, most relating to asylum seekers.<ref name="Gans">{{cite web |last=Gans |first=Jeremy |date=20 February 2018 |title=News: Court may lose Nauru appellate role |url=https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2018/02/20/news-court-may-lose-nauru-appellate-role/comment-page-1/ |access-date=2 April 2018 |work=Opinions on High |publisher=Melbourne Law School, [[The University of Melbourne]] |archive-date=2 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180402101813/https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2018/02/20/news-court-may-lose-nauru-appellate-role/comment-page-1/ |url-status=live}}</ref> At the time some legal commentators argued that this appellate jurisdiction sat awkwardly with the High Court's other responsibilities, and ought be renegotiated or repealed.<ref>{{cite book |author=[[Australian Law Reform Commission]] |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/lawreform/ALRC/2001/92.pdf |title=The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth: A Review of the Judiciary Act 1903 and Related Legislation |date=30 June 2001 |pages=341–346 |chapter=Appeals from the Supreme Court of Nauru to the High Court |quote='''Recommendation 19&ndash;1.''' The Attorney-General should consult with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding the feasibility of terminating the treaty between Australia and Nauru, which provides for certain appeals to be brought to the High Court from the Supreme Court of Nauru. If termination is considered feasible, the ''Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976'' should be repealed. |access-date=2 April 2018 |archive-date=7 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180807214754/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/lawreform/ALRC/2001/92.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Roberts |first=Andrew |date=4 December 2017 |title=Appeals to Australia from Nauru: The High Court's Unusual Jurisdiction |url=https://auspublaw.org/2017/12/appeals-to-australia-from-nauru/ |access-date=2 April 2018 |work=[[AusPubLaw]] |archive-date=2 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180402225425/https://auspublaw.org/2017/12/appeals-to-australia-from-nauru/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Anomalies included the need to apply Nauruan law and customary practice, and that special leave hearings were not required.<ref name = Gans />

Nauruan politicians<ref group="Note">such as the former Justice Minister [[Matthew Batsiua]]</ref> had said publicly that the Nauruan government was unhappy about these arrangements.<ref name="Guardian">{{cite news |last=Wahlquist |first=Calla |date=2 April 2018 |title=Fears for asylum seekers as Nauru moves to cut ties to Australia's high court |newspaper=[[Guardian Australia|The Guardian]] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/02/fears-for-asylum-seekers-as-nauru-moves-to-cut-ties-to-australias-high-court |access-date=2 April 2018 |archive-date=1 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180401234753/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/02/fears-for-asylum-seekers-as-nauru-moves-to-cut-ties-to-australias-high-court |url-status=live}}</ref> Of particular concern was a decision of the High Court in October 2017, which quashed an increase in sentence imposed upon political protestors by the Supreme Court of Nauru.<ref name = Gans /><ref name = CecilHCA>{{cite AustLII |litigants=Cecil v Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru); Kepae v Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru); Jeremiah v Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) |court=HCA |year=2017 |num=46 |date=20 October 2017 |courtname=High Court}}</ref> The High Court had remitted the case to the Supreme Court "differently constituted, for hearing according to law".<ref name = CecilHCA />

On Nauru's 50th anniversary of independence, [[Baron Waqa]] declared to parliament that "[s]everance of ties to Australia's highest court is a logical step towards full nationhood and an expression of confidence in Nauru's ability to determine its own destiny".<ref name = Gans /> Justice Minister [[David Adeang]] said that an additional reason for cutting ties was the cost of appeals to the High Court.<ref>{{cite web |date=2 March 2018 |title=Nauru Court of Appeal another step to nation's maturity |url=http://nauru-news.com/nauru-court-appeal-another-step-nations-maturity/ |access-date=2 April 2018 |work=[[NauruNews]] |publisher=[[Government of Nauru|The Government of the Republic of Nauru]] |archive-date=2 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180402102110/http://nauru-news.com/nauru-court-appeal-another-step-nations-maturity/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Nauru then exercised an option under its agreement with Australia to end its appellate arrangement with 90 days notice. The option was exercised on 12 December 2017 and the High Court's jurisdiction ended on 12 March 2018.<ref name="Guardian" /> The termination did not become publicly known until after the Supreme Court had reheard the case of the protesters and had again imposed increased sentences.<ref name="ABC">{{cite news |last=Clarke |first=Melissa |date=2 April 2018 |title=Justice in Nauru curtailed as Government abolishes appeal system |work=[[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]] |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-02/nauru-now-without-court-of-appeal/9609524 |access-date=2 April 2018 |archive-date=2 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180402015127/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-02/nauru-now-without-court-of-appeal/9609524 |url-status=live}}</ref> In 2022, Australia passed legislation which removed the possibility for reinstatement of the appeal pathway.<ref>{{Citation |title=Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Act |date=2022 |url=https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/catla2021mn1a2022546/sch3.html |access-date=23 January 2025}}</ref>

==History==

=== Pre-establishment ===

Following [[Henry George Grey, 3rd Earl Grey|Earl Grey]]'s 1846 proposal to federate the colonies, an 1849 report from the Privy Council suggested a national court be created.<ref name="Williams_hundred">{{cite book |author=Williams, John |title=One hundred years of the High Court of Australia |publisher=King's College, London |year=2003 |isbn=1-85507-124-X}}</ref> In 1856, the [[Governor of South Australia]], [[Richard Graves MacDonnell|Richard MacDonnell]], suggested to the [[Government of South Australia]] that they consider establishing a court to hear appeals from the Supreme Courts in each colony. In 1860 the [[Parliament of South Australia|South Australian Parliament]] passed legislation encouraging MacDonnell to put the idea to the other colonies. However, only [[Government of Victoria|Victoria]] considered the proposal.<ref name="Bennett_keystone">{{cite book |last=Bennett |first=J.M. |author-link=John Bennett (Australian lawyer) |title=Keystone of the Federal Arch |year=1980 |publisher=Australian Government Publishing Service |location=Canberra |isbn=0-642-04866-5}}</ref>

At a [[Melbourne]] inter-colonial conference held in 1870, the idea of an inter-colonial court was again raised. A [[Royal Commission|royal commission]] was established in Victoria to investigate options for establishing such a court, and a draft bill was put forward. This draft bill, however, completely excluded appeals to the Privy Council, causing a reaction in London which prevented any serious attempt to implement the bill through the [[British Imperial Parliament]].<ref name="Bennett_keystone"/>

Another draft bill was proposed in 1880 for the establishment of an Australasian court of appeal. The proposed court would consist of one judge from each of the colonial supreme courts, who would serve one-year terms.<ref group="Note">New Zealand, which was at the time also considering joining the Australian colonies in federation, was also to be a participant in the new court.</ref><ref name="Bennett_keystone" /> However, the proposed court allowed for appeals to the Privy Council, which was disliked by some of the colonies, and the bill was abandoned.

====Constitutional conventions====

[[File:Chief Justice Samuel Griffith.jpg|thumb|upright| [[Samuel Griffith|Sir Samuel Griffith]], first [[Chief Justice of Australia]]]]

The idea of a federal supreme court was raised during the [[Constitutional Convention (Australia)|Constitutional Conventions]] of the 1890s. A proposal for a supreme court of Australia was included in an 1891 draft. It was proposed to enable the court to hear appeals from the state supreme courts, with appeals to the Privy Council only occurring on assent from the [[British monarch]]. It was proposed that the Privy Council be prevented from hearing appeals on constitutional matters.

This draft was largely the work of [[Samuel Griffith|Sir Samuel Griffith]],<ref name="Hull_centenary">{{cite book |author=Hull, Crispin |url=http://www.crispinhull.com.au/high-court-book/ |title=The High Court of Australia: celebrating the centenary 1903–2003 |publisher=Lawbook Co. |year=2003 |isbn=0-455-21947-8 |access-date=19 May 2017 |archive-date=15 May 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170515045352/http://www.crispinhull.com.au/high-court-book/ |url-status=live}}</ref> then the [[Premier of Queensland]]. The attorney-general of Tasmania [[Andrew Inglis Clark]] also contributed to the constitution's judicial clauses. Clark's most significant contribution was to give the court its own constitutional authority, ensuring a [[separation of powers]]. The original formulation of Griffith, [[Edmund Barton|Barton]] and [[Charles Kingston|Kingston]] provided only that the parliament could establish a court.<ref name="Williams_hundred"/>

[[File:Andrew inglis clark.jpg|thumb|left|upright| [[Andrew Inglis Clark]], prominent contributor to the clauses about the High Court in the [[Constitution of Australia]]]]

The draft was later amended at various conventions.<ref group="Note">In [[Adelaide]] in 1897, in [[Sydney]] later the same year and in Melbourne in early 1898</ref> In Adelaide the court's proposed name was changed to be the "High Court of Australia".

Many people opposed the idea of the new court completely replacing the Privy Council. Commercial interests, particularly subsidiaries of British companies, preferred to operate under the unified jurisdiction of the British courts, and petitioned the conventions to that effect.<ref name="Hull_centenary" /> Others argued that Australian judges were of a poorer quality than British, and that the inevitable divergence in law that would occur without the oversight of the Privy Council would put the legal system at risk.<ref name="Williams_hundred" />

Some politicians (e.g. [[George Dibbs]]) supported a retention of Privy Council supervision; whereas others, including [[Alfred Deakin]], supported the design of the court as it was.<ref name="Hull_centenary" /> Inglis Clark took the view that the possibility of divergence was a good thing, for the law could adapt appropriately to Australian circumstances.<ref name="Williams_hundred" /> Despite this debate, the draft's judicial sections remained largely unchanged.

After the draft had been approved by the electors of the colonies, it was taken to London in 1899 for the assent of the British Imperial Parliament. The issue of Privy Council appeals remained a sticking point however; with objections made by [[Secretary of State for the Colonies]], [[Joseph Chamberlain]], the [[Chief Justice of South Australia]], [[Samuel Way|Sir Samuel Way]], and [[Samuel Griffith]], among others.<ref name="Gleeson_s74" /> In October 1899, Griffith made representations to Chamberlain soliciting suggestions from British ministers for alterations to the draft, and offered alterations of his own.<ref name="Gleeson_s74" /> Indeed, such was the effect of these and other representations that Chamberlain called for delegates from the colonies to come to London to assist with the approval process, with a view to their approving any alterations that the British government might see fit to make; delegates were sent, including Deakin, Barton and [[Charles Kingston]], although they were under instructions that they would never agree to changes.<ref name="Gleeson_s74" />

After intense lobbying both in Australia and in the United Kingdom, the Imperial Parliament finally approved the draft constitution. The draft as passed included an alteration to section 74, in a compromise between the two sides. It allowed for a general right of appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council, but the Parliament of Australia could make laws restricting this avenue. In addition, appeals in ''inter se''<ref group="Note">(matters concerning the boundary between and limits of the powers of the Commonwealth and the powers of the states)</ref> matters were not as of right, but had to be certified by the High Court.<ref name="Gleeson_s74" />
{{clear}}

====Formation of the court====

[[File:Opening of the first High Court of Australia (1903).png|thumb|The first [[Chief Justice of Australia]], [[Samuel Griffith|Sir Samuel Griffith]], is administered the judicial oath at the first sitting of the High Court, in the [[Banco Court]] of the [[Supreme Court of Victoria]], 6 October 1903.]] 

The High Court was not immediately established after the Commonwealth of Australia came into being on 1 January 1901. Some [[Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1901–1903|members of the first Parliament]], including [[John Quick (politician)|Sir John Quick]], then one of the leading legal experts in Australia, opposed legislation to set up the court. Even [[H. B. Higgins]], who was himself later appointed to the court, objected to setting it up, on the grounds that it would be impotent while Privy Council appeals remained, and that in any event there was not enough work for a federal court to make it viable.<ref name="Hull_centenary"/>

The then [[Attorney-General of Australia|Attorney-General]] Alfred Deakin introduced the ''Judiciary Bill'' to the [[Australian House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] in 1902. Prior efforts had been continually delayed by opponents in the parliament, and the success of the bill is generally attributed to Deakin's passion and persistence.<ref name="Williams_hundred" /> Deakin proposed that the court be composed of five judges, specially selected to the court. Opponents instead proposed that the court should be made up of state supreme court justices, taking turns to sit on the High Court on a rotation basis, as had been mooted at the Constitutional Conventions a decade before.<ref name="mchugh oxford companion">{{cite speech |title=The High Court and the Oxford Companion to the High Court |last=McHugh |first=Michael |author-link=Michael McHugh (judge) |event=Constitutional Law and Conference Dinner |location=Botanical Gardens Restaurant |date=15 February 2002 |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/mchughj/mchughj_oxford.htm |access-date=25 February 2012 |archive-date=27 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120227122750/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/mchughj/mchughj_oxford.htm |url-status=live}}</ref> Deakin eventually negotiated amendments with the [[opposition (Australia)|opposition]], reducing the number of judges from five to three, and eliminating financial benefits such as pensions.

At one point, Deakin threatened to resign as Attorney-General due to the difficulties he faced.<ref name="Williams_hundred"/> In his three and a half hour [[Reading (legislature)|second reading]] speech to the [[Australian House of Representatives|House of Representatives]], Deakin said,<ref name="Deakin_keystone">{{cite journal |author=Deakin, Alfred |author-link=Alfred Deakin |title=''Judiciary Bill'', second reading |journal=Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates |year=1902 |volume=8 |pages=10967}}</ref><blockquote>The federation is constituted by distribution of powers, and it is this court which decides the orbit and boundary of every power... It is properly termed the keystone of the federal arch... The statute stands and will stand on the statute-book just as in the hour in which it was assented to. But the nation lives, grows and expands. Its circumstances change, its needs alter, and its problems present themselves with new faces. [The High Court] enables the Constitution to grow and be adapted to the changeful necessities and circumstances of generation after generation that the High Court operates.</blockquote>
Deakin's friend, painter [[Tom Roberts]], who viewed the speech from the public gallery, declared it Deakin's "''magnum opus''".<ref name="Williams_hundred" /> The Judiciary Act 1903 was finally passed on 25 August 1903, and the first three justices, Chief Justice Sir Samuel Griffith and justices [[Edmund Barton|Sir Edmund Barton]] and [[Richard O'Connor (politician)|Richard O'Connor]], were appointed on 5 October of that year. On 6 October, the court held its first sitting in the [[Banco Court]] in the [[Supreme Court of Victoria]].

===Early years===

On 12 October 1906, the size of the High Court was increased to five justices, and Deakin appointed [[H. B. Higgins]] and [[Isaac Isaacs]] to the High Court. Following a court-packing attempt by the Labor Prime Minister [[Andrew Fisher]] In February 1913, the bench was increased again to a total to seven. [[Charles Powers]] and [[Albert Bathurst Piddington]] were appointed. These appointments generated an outcry, however, and Piddington resigned on 5 April 1913 after serving only one month as High Court justice.<ref name="history of the high court">{{cite web |title=History of the High Court |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/history-of-the-high-court |access-date=15 September 2017 |publisher=High Court of Australia |archive-date=15 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170915070546/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/history-of-the-high-court |url-status=live}}</ref>[[File:HCA Melbourne LtBourke.jpg|thumb|The court's home between 1928 and 1980, the purpose-built courtroom in [[Little Bourke Street]], [[Melbourne]]]]

The High Court continued its Banco location in [[Melbourne]] until 1928, until a [[Old High Court Building, Melbourne|dedicated courtroom]] was built in [[Little Bourke Street]], next to the [[Supreme Court of Victoria]]. That space provided the court's Melbourne sitting place and housed the court's principal [[wikt:registry|registry]] until 1980.<ref name="prov old building">{{cite web |title=High Court Building |work=Our Nation's First Capital |publisher=Public Records Office Victoria |url=http://www.prov.vic.gov.au/exhibs/ournation/f_hcb.htm |access-date=4 December 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080819072852/http://www.prov.vic.gov.au/exhibs/ournation/f_hcb.htm |archive-date=19 August 2008}}</ref> The court also sat regularly in Sydney, sharing space in the criminal courts of [[Darlinghurst Courthouse]], before a dedicated courtroom was constructed next door in 1923.<ref name="centenary press release">{{cite web |title=Ch 3. History of the Origins and Development of the High Court of Australia |publisher=High Court of Australia |date=15 March 2011 |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/corporate/heritage/HCA-CMP-May2011.pdf |access-date=2 April 2017 |page=19 |archive-date=9 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170309163522/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/corporate/heritage/HCA-CMP-May2011.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>

[[File:HCA Darlinghurst annex.jpg|thumb|left|The annexe to the criminal court in [[Darlinghurst Courthouse|Darlinghurst]], the court's home in Sydney]]

The court travelled to other cities across the country, where it would use facilities of the respective supreme courts. Deakin had envisaged that the court would sit in many different locations, so as to truly be a federal court. Shortly after the court's creation, Chief Justice Griffith established a schedule for sittings in state capitals: [[Hobart]] in February, [[Brisbane]] in June, [[Perth]] in September, and Adelaide in October. It has been said that Griffith established this schedule because those were the times of year he found the weather most pleasant in each city.

The tradition of special sittings remains to this day, although they are dependent on the court's caseload. There are annual sittings in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane for up to a week each year, and sittings in Hobart occur once every few years. Sittings outside of these special occurrences are conducted in Canberra.

The court's operations were marked by various anomalies during [[World War II]]. The Chief Justice, [[John Latham (Australian jurist)|Sir John Latham]], served from 1940 to 1941 as Australia's first ambassador to Japan; however, his activities in that role were limited by a pact Japan had entered with the [[Axis powers]] prior to his arrival in [[Tokyo]].<ref name="adb latham">{{cite AuDB |id2=latham-sir-john-greig-7104 |title=Latham, Sir John Greig (1877–1964) |first=Stuart |last=Macintyre |volume=10 |pages=2–6 |year=1986 |isbn=0-522-84327-1}}</ref> [[Owen Dixon]] was also absent for several years of his appointment, while serving as Australia's minister to the United States in [[Washington, D.C.|Washington]].<ref name="adb Dixon">{{Australian Dictionary of Biography |first1=Grant |last1=Anderson |first2=Daryl |last2=Dawson |author-link2=Daryl Dawson |title=Dixon, Sir Owen (1886–1972) |id2=dixon-sir-owen-10024 |access-date=27 March 2020}}</ref> [[George Rich|Sir George Rich]] acted as chief justice during Latham's absence.

===Post-war period===

[[File:HCA bench 1952.jpg|thumb|The bench in 1952, shortly before Chief Justice Latham's retirement. Back, left to right, [[Wilfred Fullagar|Fullagar]], [[William Webb (judge)|Webb]], [[Dudley Williams (judge)|Williams]] & [[Frank Kitto|Kitto]]. Front, left to right, [[Owen Dixon|Dixon]], [[John Latham (Australian jurist)|Latham]] & [[Edward McTiernan|McTiernan]]]]

From 1952, with the appointment of Sir Owen Dixon as chief justice, the court entered a period of stability. After World War II, the court's workload continued to grow, particularly from the 1960s onwards, putting pressures on the court.<ref name="HChistory"/> [[Garfield Barwick|Sir Garfield Barwick]], who was [[Attorney-General of Australia|attorney-general]] from 1958 to 1964, and from then until 1981 chief justice, proposed that more federal courts be established, as permitted under the Constitution. In 1976 the [[Federal Court of Australia]] was established, with a general federal jurisdiction, and in more recent years the [[Family Court of Australia|Family Court]] and [[Federal Magistrates Court]] have been set up to reduce the court's workload in specific areas.

In 1968, appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation were barred. In 1986, with the passage of the [[Australia Act 1986|Australia Acts]] direct appeals to the Privy Council from state Supreme Courts were also closed off.

The life tenure of High Court justices ended in 1977. A national referendum in May 1977 approved the ''[[1977 Australian referendum (Retirement of Judges)|Constitution Alteration (Retirement of Judges) 1977]]'', which upon its commencement on 29 July 1977 amended section 72 of the Constitution so as require that all justices appointed from then on must retire on attaining the age of 70 years.<ref name="HChistory">{{Cite web |url=https://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/history |title=History of the High Court |website=High Court of Australia |access-date=12 April 2020 |archive-date=12 April 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200412154459/https://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/history |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004A01721 |title=Constitution Alteration (Retirement of Judges) Act 1977 |website=ComLaw |date=29 July 1977 |access-date= 3 March 2014 |archive-date= 22 October 2014 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141022035613/http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004A01721 |url-status= live}}</ref>

The ''High Court of Australia Act 1979'' (Cth), which commenced on 21 April 1980, gave the High Court power to administer its own affairs and prescribed the qualifications for, and method of appointment of, its Justices.<ref name="HChistory" /><ref name="High Court of Australia Act">{{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|hcoaa1979233|High Court of Australia Act 1979}}</ref>

==Legal history==

Historical periods of the High Court are commonly denoted by reference to the chief justice of the time, akin to that of the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] under the [[Chief Justice of Canada]]. However, the chief justice is not always the most influential figure on the Court.<ref group="Note">For example; Isaacs J was the primary force in the Knox Court, while his own tenure as Chief Justice saw Dixon J emerge as the Court's leading jurist</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KqewBgAAQBAJ |title=The High Court, the Constitution and Australian Politics |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2015 |isbn=9781107043664 |editor1=Dixon, R |ref=CITEREFDixon & Williams (eds) |editor2=Williams, G |editor-link2=George Williams (lawyer) |access-date=14 September 2020 |archive-date=5 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210205135206/https://books.google.com/books?id=KqewBgAAQBAJ |url-status=live}} at pp. 7–8, 101–103, 118–119.</ref>[[File:Sir Samuel Walker Griffith.jpg|thumb|Chief Justice Griffith]]

=== Griffith court: 1903–1919 ===

The first court under Chief Justice Griffith laid the foundations of Australia's constitutional law. The court was conscious of its position as Australia's new court of appeal, and made efforts to establish its authority at the top of Australia's court hierarchy. In ''[[Deakin v Webb]]'' (1904)<ref name="deakin webb">{{cite AustLII|HCA|57|1904 |litigants=[[Deakin v Webb]] |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/57.pdf (1904) 1 {{abbr|CLR|Commonwealth Law Reports}} 585]}}.</ref> It criticised the [[Supreme Court of Victoria|Victorian Supreme Court]] for following a Privy Council decision about the [[Constitution of Canada]] instead of its own authority.<ref name="Bennett_keystone" />

In its early years Griffith and other federalists on the bench were dominant. Their decisions were occasionally at odds with nationalist judges such as Sir [[Isaac Isaacs]] and [[H. B. Higgins]] in 1906. With the death of Justice [[Richard Edward O'Connor]], in 1912; the nationalists achieved majority and Griffith's influence began to decline.<ref name="companion Griffith court">{{cite book |last=Mason |first=Anthony |title=The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001 |isbn=0-19-554022-0 |editor1-last=Blackshield |editor1-first=Tony |location=South Melbourne, Victoria |chapter=Griffith Court |author-link=Anthony Mason (judge) |editor2-last=Coper |editor2-first=Michael |editor3-last=Williams |editor3-first=George |editor3-link=George Williams (lawyer)}}</ref>

The early constitutional law decisions of the Griffith court was influenced by [[United States constitutional law|US constitutional law]].<ref group="Note">e.g. In the case of ''[[D'Emden v Pedder]]'', which involved the application of Tasmanian [[stamp duty]] to a federal official's salary, the court adopted the doctrine of implied immunity of instrumentalities which had been established in the United States Supreme Court case of ''[[McCulloch v. Maryland]]''</ref>

An important doctrine peculiar to the Griffith court was that of the [[Reserved State powers|reserved state powers]].<ref group="Note">The concept was developed in such cases as ''[[Peterswald v Bartley]]'' (1904), ''[[R v Barger]]'' (1908) and the [[Attorney-General for NSW v Brewery Employees Union of NSW|Union Label case]] (1908).</ref> Under this doctrine, the Commonwealth parliament's legislative powers were to be interpreted narrowly; so as to avoid intruding on areas of power traditionally exercised by the state Parliaments prior to federation.<ref name="union label">{{cite AustLII|HCA|94|1908 |litigants=[[Attorney-General for NSW v Brewery Employees Union of NSW]] |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1908/94.pdf (1908) 6 {{abbr|CLR|Commonwealth Law Reports}} 469]}}.</ref> [[Anthony Mason (judge)|Anthony Mason]] has noted that this doctrine probably helped smooth the transition to a federal system of government and "by preserving a balance between the constituent elements of the Australian federation, probably conformed to community sentiment, which at that stage was by no means adjusted to the exercise of central power".<ref name="companion Griffith court" />

Griffith and Sir Edmund Barton were frequently consulted by governors-general, including on the exercise of the [[reserve powers]].<ref>{{cite journal |author=Markwell, Donald |author-link=Donald Markwell |year=1999 |title=Griffith, Barton and the early governor-generals: aspects of Australia's constitutional development |journal=Public Law Review}}</ref>[[File:Ac.isaacs.jpg|thumb| [[Isaac Isaacs|Sir Isaac Isaacs]], Justice from 1906 and Chief Justice from 1930 to 1931]]

=== Knox, Isaacs and Gavan Duffy courts: 1919–1935 ===

==== Knox court ====

[[Adrian Knox]] became chief justice on 18 October 1919. Justice Edmund Barton died soon after, leaving no original members. During the Knox court, Justice Isaacs Isaacs had strong influence.<ref name="companion Isaacs">{{cite book |last=Cowen |first=Zelman |title=The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001 |isbn=0-19-554022-0 |editor1-last=Blackshield |editor1-first=Tony |location=South Melbourne, Victoria |chapter=Isaac Alfred Isaacs |author-link=Zelman Cowen |editor2-last=Coper |editor2-first=Michael |editor3-last=Williams |editor3-first=George |editor3-link=George Williams (lawyer)}}</ref>

Under the Knox court the [[Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd|Engineers case]] was decided, ending the reserved state powers doctrine. The decision had lasting significance for the federal balance in Australia's political arrangements. Another significant decision was ''[[Roche v Kronheimer]]'', in which the court relied upon the [[Section 51(vi) of the Australian Constitution|defence power]] to uphold federal legislation seeking to implement Australia's obligations under the [[Treaty of Versailles]].<ref group="Note">Higgins opted to rely upon the [[Section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution|external affairs power]]; making this the first instance where a judge attempted to rely upon the external affairs power to implement an international treaty in Australia</ref>

==== Isaacs court ====

[[Isaac Isaacs|Sir Isaac Isaacs]] was Chief Justice for only forty-two weeks; he left the court to be appointed [[Governor-General of Australia|governor-general]]. He was ill for most of his term, and few significant cases were decided in this time.<ref name="companion Isaacs" />

==== Duffy court ====
Sir [[Frank Gavan Duffy]] was Chief Justice for four years from 1931; but he was already 78 when appointed to the position. He was not influential, and only participated in 40% of the cases during his tenure. For the most part he gave short judgements, or joined in the judgements of his colleagues. His frequent absence resulted in many tied decisions which have no lasting value as [[precedent]].<ref name="companion Gavan Duffy court">{{cite book |last=Fricke |first=Graham |title=The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001 |isbn=0-19-554022-0 |editor1-last=Blackshield |editor1-first=Tony |location=South Melbourne, Victoria |chapter=Gavan Duffy Court |editor2-last=Coper |editor2-first=Michael |editor3-last=Williams |editor3-first=George |editor3-link=George Williams (lawyer)}}</ref>

Important cases of this time include:

*''[[Attorney-General (New South Wales) v Trethowan]]''<ref group="Note">which considered the NSW Premier [[Jack Lang (Australian politician)|Jack Lang]]'s attempt at abolishing the [[New South Wales Legislative Council]]</ref>
*The [[New South Wales v Commonwealth (1932)|First State Garnishee case]]<ref group="Note">which upheld federal legislation compelling the Lang government to repay its loans</ref>
*''[[Tuckiar v The King]]''<ref group="Note">which examined [[legal ethics]] and the treatment of Indigenous people before the Australian [[justice system]]</ref>

=== Latham court: 1935–1952 ===

[[File:Johnlatham.jpg|thumb| [[John Latham (judge)|John Latham]], as Deputy Prime Minister prior to appointment]]

John Latham was elevated to Chief Justice in 1935. His tenure is most notable for the court's interpretation of wartime legislation, and the subsequent transition back to peace.<ref name="companion Latham court">{{cite book |last=Douglas |first=Roger |title=The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001 |isbn=0-19-554022-0 |editor1-last=Blackshield |editor1-first=Tony |location=South Melbourne, Victoria |chapter=Latham Court |editor2-last=Coper |editor2-first=Michael |editor3-last=Williams |editor3-first=George |editor3-link=George Williams (lawyer)}}</ref>

Most legislation was upheld as enabled by the [[Section 51(vi) of the Australian Constitution|defence power]].<ref group="Note">e.g. ''[[Andrews v Howell]]'' (1941) and ''[[de Mestre v Chisholm]]'' (1944).</ref> The [[John Curtin|Curtin]] [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]] government's legislation was rarely successfully challenged, with the court recognizing a necessity that the defence power permit the federal government to govern strongly.

The court allowed for the establishment of a national [[income tax]] scheme in the [[South Australia v Commonwealth|''First Uniform Tax case'']], and upheld legislation declaring the [[pacifist]] [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] denomination to be a subversive organisation.<ref group="Note">see: [[Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses v Commonwealth|''Jehovah's Witnesses case'']]</ref>

Following the war, the court reigned in the scope of the defence power. It struck down several key planks of the [[Ben Chifley|Chifley]] Labor government's reconstruction program, notably an attempt to [[nationalization|nationalise]] the banks in the [[Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth|Bank Nationalisation case]] (1948),<ref name="bank nationalisation">{{Cite AustLII|HCA|7|1948 |litigants=[[Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth]] (Bank Nationalisation case) |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1948/7.pdf (1948) 76 {{abbr|CLR|Commonwealth Law Reports}} 1]}}.</ref> and an attempt to establish a comprehensive medical benefits scheme in the [[Attorney-General (Victoria); Ex rel Dale v Commonwealth|First Pharmaceutical Benefits case]] (1945).<ref name="pharma">{{Cite AustLII|HCA|30|1945 |litigants=[[Attorney-General (Victoria); Ex rel Dale v Commonwealth]] (First Pharmaceutical Benefits case) |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1945/30.pdf (1945) 71 {{abbr|CLR|Commonwealth Law Reports}} 237]}}.</ref>

Other notable cases of the era include:

*The [[Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth|Communist Party case]]<ref group="Note">In which the court struck down [[Robert Menzies|Menzies]] [[Liberal Party of Australia|Liberal]] government legislation banning the [[Communist Party of Australia]]</ref>
*''[[Proudman v Dayman]]''<ref group="Note">which developed the [[Australian criminal law|criminal]] defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact</ref>
*''[[R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry]]''<ref group="Note">presaged an expansive interpretation of the external affairs power, by upholding the implementation of an air navigation treaty</ref>

=== Dixon court: 1952–1964 ===

[[File:Owen Dixon.jpg|thumb|Owen Dixon]]

Owen Dixon was appointed Chief Justice in 1952, after 23 years as a Justice on the court.

During his tenure the court experienced what some have described as a "Golden Age". Dixon had strong influence on the court during this period. The court experienced a marked increase in the number of joint judgements, many of which were led by Dixon. The era has also been noted for the presence of generally good relations among the court's judges.<ref name="companion Dixon court">{{cite book |last=Zines |first=Leslie |title=The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001 |isbn=0-19-554022-0 |editor1-last=Blackshield |editor1-first=Tony |location=South Melbourne, Victoria |chapter=Dixon Court |editor2-last=Coper |editor2-first=Michael |editor3-last=Williams |editor3-first=George |editor3-link=George Williams (lawyer)}}</ref>

Notable decisions of the Dixon court include:

*The [[R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia|''Boilermakers' case'']]<ref group="Note">In which the applicability of the [[separation of powers]] in protecting the [[judiciary]] from interference was firmly asserted</ref>
*[[Victoria v Commonwealth (1957)|''Second Uniform Tax case'']]<ref group="Note">In which the continued existence of the federal government's wartime income tax scheme was upheld as constitutional</ref>

During Dixon's time, the court came to adopt by majority several of the views he had expressed in minority years prior.<ref name="companion Dixon court" />

=== Barwick court: 1964–1981 ===

[[File:Garfield Barwick 1959.jpg|thumb|Garfield Barwick]]
[[Garfield Barwick]] was appointed Chief Justice in 1964.

Among other things, the Barwick court is known for controversially deciding several cases on [[tax avoidance and tax evasion]], almost always deciding against the taxation office. Led by Barwick himself in most judgments, the court distinguished between avoidance (legitimately minimising one's tax obligations) and evasion (illegally evading obligations). The decisions effectively nullified the anti-avoidance legislation and led to the proliferation of avoidance schemes in the 1970s, a result which drew much criticism upon the court.<ref name="companion Barwick court">{{cite book |last=Mason |first=Anthony |title=The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001 |isbn=0-19-554022-0 |editor1-last=Blackshield |editor1-first=Tony |location=South Melbourne, Victoria |chapter=Barwick Court |author-link=Anthony Mason (judge) |editor2-last=Coper |editor2-first=Michael |editor3-last=Williams |editor3-first=George |editor3-link=George Williams (lawyer)}}</ref>

Notable decisions of the Barwick court include:

*[[Bradley v. The Commonwealth|''Bradley v Commonwealth'']]
*The [[Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd|Concrete Pipes case]]<ref group="Note">a case that marked the beginning of the modern interpretation of the [[Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution|corporations power]]; which had been interpreted narrowly since 1909. It established that the federal parliament could exercise the power to regulate at least the trading activities of corporations. Earlier interpretations had allowed only the regulation of conduct or transactions with the public</ref>
*The [[New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975)|Seas and Submerged Lands case]]<ref name="seas & submerged lands">{{Cite AustLII|HCA|58|1975 |litigants=[[New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975)|New South Wales v Commonwealth]] (Seas and Submerged Lands case) |parallelcite=(1975) 135 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 337}}.</ref><ref group="Note">upholding legislation asserting sovereignty over the [[territorial sea]]</ref>
*The [[Western Australia v Commonwealth (1975)|First]] and [[Queensland v Commonwealth|Second]] Territory Senators' cases<ref name="1st territory senators">{{Cite AustLII|HCA|46|1975 |litigants=[[Western Australia v Commonwealth (1975)]] (First Territory Senators' case) |parallelcite=(1975) 134 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 201}}.</ref><ref name="2nd territory senators">{{Cite AustLII|HCA|60|1977 |litigants=[[Queensland v Commonwealth]] (Second Territory Senators' case) |parallelcite=(1977) 139 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 585}}.</ref><ref group="Note">Which concerned whether legislation allowing for the mainland territories to be represented in the Parliament of Australia was valid</ref>
*''[[Russell v Russell (Australia)|Russell v Russell]]''<ref group="Note">concerning the validity of the ''[[Family Law Act 1975]]''</ref>
*''[[Cormack v Cope]]''<ref group="Note">a case relating to the historic [[Joint Sitting, Australian parliament, 1974|1974 joint sitting]] of the Parliament of Australia</ref>
*[[Victoria v Commonwealth (September 1975)|''Victoria v Commonwealth'']]

=== Gibbs court: 1981–1987 ===

[[Harry Gibbs|Sir Harry Gibbs]] was appointed as Chief Justice in 1981.

Among the Gibbs court's notable jurisprudence is an interpretive expansion of the Commonwealth's legislative powers.<ref name="companion Gibbs court">{{cite book |last=Twomey |first=Anne |author-link=Anne Twomey (academic) |title=The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001 |isbn=0-19-554022-0 |editor1-last=Blackshield |editor1-first=Tony |location=South Melbourne, Victoria |chapter=Gibbs Court |editor2-last=Coper |editor2-first=Michael |editor3-last=Williams |editor3-first=George |editor3-link=George Williams (lawyer)}}</ref> Scholars have also noted a tendency away from the traditions of legalism and conservatism that characterised the Dixon and Barwick courts.<ref name="companion Gibbs court" />

Notable decisions of the court include:

*''[[Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen]]''<ref group="Note">In which the court held 4:3 that the ''[[Racial Discrimination Act 1975]]'' was validly supported by [[Section 51(xxix) of the Constitution of Australia|s51(xxix)]]</ref>
*The [[Commonwealth v Tasmania|Tasmanian Dams case]]<ref group="Note">In which the court held that federal environmental legislation interfering with a Tasmanian dam construction was validly supported by [[Section 51(xxix) of the Constitution of Australia|s51(xxix)]]</ref>
*''[[Kioa v West]]''<ref group="Note">In which the court expanded on the doctrines of [[natural justice]] and [[Due process|procedural fairness]]</ref>
*The [[Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton#Post-conviction|Chamberlain case]]
*''[[A v Hayden]]''<ref group="Note">concerning the botched [[Australian Secret Intelligence Service|ASIS]] [[Australian Secret Intelligence Service#The Sheraton Hotel incident|exercise at the Sheraton Hotel]] in Melbourne</ref>

[[File:Anthony Mason QC.jpg|thumb|Anthony Mason]]

=== Mason court: 1987–1995 ===

[[Anthony Mason (judge)|Sir Anthony Mason]] became Chief Justice in 1987.

The Mason court is known for being one of the most legally liberal benches of the court.<ref>{{Citation |author1=Pierce, Jason Louis |title=Inside the Mason Court revolution : the High Court of Australia transformed |date=2006 |publisher=Carolina Academic Press |isbn=978-1-59460-061-6}}</ref> It was a notably stable court, with the only change in its bench being the appointment of [[Michael McHugh (judge)|McHugh]] following [[Ronald Wilson|Wilson]]'s retirement.

Some of the decisions of the court in this time were politically controversial.<ref group="Note">Especially [[Mabo v Queensland (No 2)|''Mabo'']]</ref> Scholars have noted that the Mason court has tended to receive "high praise and stringent criticism in equal measure".<ref name="companion Mason court" />

Notable decisions of the court include:

*''[[Cole v Whitfield]]''<ref group="Note">Known for resolving an interpretive controversy regarding s92 of the Constitution; a section pertaining to free trade. Prior to ''Cole v Whitfield'', the High Court was plagued with litigation on this section.</ref><ref name="companion Mason court">{{cite book |author1=Dillon, Michelle |title=The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia |author2=Doyle, John |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001 |isbn=0-19-554022-0 |editor1-last=Blackshield |editor1-first=Tony |location=South Melbourne, Victoria |chapter=Mason Court |editor2-last=Coper |editor2-first=Michael |editor3-last=Williams |editor3-first=George |editor3-link=George Williams (lawyer)}}</ref>
*''[[Dietrich v The Queen]]''<ref group="Note">In which the court established a de facto constitutional requirement that [[legal aid]] be provided to defendants in serious criminal trials</ref>
*''[[Mabo v Queensland (No 2)]]''<ref group="Note">In which it was found that [[Native title in Australia|native title]] was recognized by Australia's common law</ref>
*''[[Polyukhovich v Commonwealth]]''<ref group="Note">regarding the validity of the ''War Crimes Act 1945''</ref>
*''[[Sykes v Cleary]]''<ref group="Note">regarding the disputed election of [[Phil Cleary]]</ref>
*''[[Waltons Stores (Interstate Ltd) v Maher|Waltons Stores v Maher]]'' 
This era is also notable for originating Australia's [[implied freedom of political communication]] jurisprudence; through the cases ''[[Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth]]'' and [[Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd|''Theophanous'']].

=== Brennan court: 1995–1998 ===

Sir [[Gerard Brennan]] succeeded Mason in 1995.

The court experienced many changes in members and significant cases in this three year period.<ref name="companion Brennan court">{{cite book |last=Jackson |first=David |title=The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001 |isbn=0-19-554022-0 |editor1-last=Blackshield |editor1-first=Tony |location=South Melbourne, Victoria |chapter=Brennan Court |editor2-last=Coper |editor2-first=Michael |editor3-last=Williams |editor3-first=George |editor3-link=George Williams (lawyer)}}</ref>

Notable decisions of the court include:

*''[[Ha v New South Wales]]''<ref group="Note">In which the court invalidated a [[New South Wales]] tobacco licensing scheme, reining in the licensing scheme exception to the prohibition on states levying [[excise]] duties, contained in [[Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia|Section 90 of the Constitution]]</ref>
*''[[Grollo v Palmer]]''<ref group="Note">Known for the [[persona designata]] doctrine</ref>
*[[Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)|''Kable v DPP'']]<ref group="Note">Known for establishing the 'Kable Doctrine'</ref>
*''[[Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation|Lange v ABC]]''<ref group="Note">An important case within Australia's [[implied freedom of political communication]] jurisprudence</ref>
*The [[Wik Peoples v Queensland|Wik case]]<ref group="Note">on whether statutory leases extinguish [[Native title in Australia|native title]] rights</ref>

[[File:Gleeson photo.jpg|thumb|Murray Gleeson]]

=== Gleeson court: 1998–2008 ===

[[Murray Gleeson]] was appointed Chief Justice in 1998. The Gleeson Court has been regarded as a relatively conservative period of the court's history.<ref>Dixon, R., & Lau, S. (2015). The Gleeson Court and the Howard era: A tale of two conservatives (and isms). In R. Dixon & G. Williams (Eds.), ''The High Court, the Constitution and Australian Politics'' (pp. 284–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107445253.015</ref>

Notable decisions of the court include:

*''[[Al-Kateb v Godwin]]''
*''[[Egan v Willis]]''
*[[New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006)|''New South Wales v Commonwealth'' (Workchoices Case)]]
*''[[R v Tang]]''
*''[[Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally]]''<ref group="Note">In which the court struck down legislation vesting state jurisdiction in the Federal Court</ref>
*''[[Sue v Hill]]'' 
*''[[Western Australia v Ward]]'' 
*The [[Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria|''Yorta Yorta case'']]
[[File:Robert French.jpg|thumb|Robert French]]

=== French court: 2008–2017 ===

[[Robert French]] was appointed Chief Justice in September 2008.

Notable decisions of the French court include:

*''[[Pape v Commissioner of Taxation]]''<ref name="Pape">{{Cite AustLII|HCA|23|2009 |litigants=[[Pape v Commissioner of Taxation]] |parallelcite=(2009) 238 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 1}}.</ref> 
*''[[Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship|Plaintiff M70]]'' 
*''[[Williams v Commonwealth]]'' 
[[File:Susan Kiefel 2011.jpg|thumb|Susan Kiefel in 2011]]

=== Kiefel court: 2017–2023 ===

[[Susan Kiefel]] was appointed Chief Justice in January 2017.

Legal scholars have noted a shift in judicial style within the Kiefel court to one that attempts broad consensus.<ref name="The Great Assenters">{{Cite web |date=2018-05-01 |title=The Great Assenters |url=https://insidestory.org.au/the-great-assenters/ |access-date=2021-06-02 |website=Inside Story |language=en |archive-date=2 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210602221529/https://insidestory.org.au/the-great-assenters/ |url-status=live}}</ref> The frequency of dissenting judgements has decreased; and there have been relatively fewer decisions with a 4:3 split. Extrajudicially, Kiefel has expressed sympathy for judicial practices that maximise consensus and minimise dissent.<ref>{{Cite speech |last=Kiefel |first=Susan |event=Selden Society Lecture |location=Supreme Court of Queensland |date=28 November 2017 |title=Judicial Courage and the Decorum of Dissent |url=https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-justices/kiefelj/KiefelCJ28Nov2017_1.pdf |access-date=2 June 2021 |archive-date=31 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201031131817/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-justices/kiefelj/KiefelCJ28Nov2017_1.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>

Additionally, it has been noted that Kiefel, Keane, and Bell frequently deliver a joint judgement when a unanimous consensus is not reached; often resulting in their decisions being determinative of the majority. This recent practice of the court has been criticised by the scholar [[Jeremy Gans]], with comparisons drawn to the [[Four Horsemen (Supreme Court)|Four Horsemen]] era of the US Supreme Court.<ref name="The Great Assenters"/>

Notable decisions of the Kiefel court include:

*''[[Re Canavan]]''<ref group="Note">See: [[2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis]]</ref>''<ref name="HCA re Canavan">{{cite AustLII|HCA|45|2017 |litigants=[[Re Canavan]]}}. {{cite web |date=27 October 2017 |title=Judgment summary |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2017/hca-45-2017-10-27.pdf |publisher=High Court |access-date=27 October 2017 |archive-date=27 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171027180402/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2017/hca-45-2017-10-27.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Wright |first=Tony |date=27 October 2017 |title=Citizenship verdict: The High Court and the theatre of public execution |work=Sydney Morning Herald |url=http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/citizenship-verdict-the-high-court-and-the-theatre-of-public-execution-20171026-gz9b64.html |access-date=27 October 2017 |archive-date=28 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171028044212/http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/citizenship-verdict-the-high-court-and-the-theatre-of-public-execution-20171026-gz9b64.html |url-status=live}}</ref>''
*''[[Wilkie v Commonwealth]]''<ref group="Note">In which the Court held that expenditure for the [[Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey]] had been approved by Parliament and was the collection of "statistical information" that could be conducted by the [[Australian Bureau of Statistics]].</ref><ref name="Wilkie HCA">{{cite AustLII|HCA|40|2017 |litigants=Wilkie v Commonwealth; Australian Marriage Equality v Minister for Finance |link=Wilkie v Commonwealth}}. {{cite web |date=28 September 2017 |title=Judgment summary |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2017/hca-40-2017-09-28.pdf |publisher=High Court |access-date=27 October 2017 |archive-date=28 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170928060036/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2017/hca-40-2017-09-28.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>
*[[AB v CD (Australia)|''AB v CD; EF v CD'']]<ref group="Note">Release of this decision revealed the [[Nicola Gobbo#Lawyer X scandal|'Lawyer X' scandal]] and the use of the criminal barrister [[Nicola Gobbo]] as a secret informant by the [[Victoria Police]] to the Australian public which lead to a Royal Commission</ref>
*[[George Pell#Acquittal|''Pell v The Queen'']]''<ref>{{Cite news |last=Davey |first=Melissa |date=7 April 2020 |title=George Pell: Australian cardinal released from jail after high court quashes child sexual abuse conviction |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/07/cardinal-george-pell-conviction-quashed-australia-high-court-freed-jail-appeal-upheld |access-date=14 April 2020 |archive-date=7 April 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200407075514/https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/07/cardinal-george-pell-conviction-quashed-australia-high-court-freed-jail-appeal-upheld |url-status=live}}</ref>''
*''[[Love v Commonwealth]]''<ref group="Note">In which the court decided that [[Aboriginal Australians]] and [[Torres Strait Islander]]s could not be considered "alien" to Australia, and so the Commonwealth Government's power to deport "aliens" under Constitution section 51(xix) did not apply to them.</ref>
*''[[Palmer v Western Australia]]''
* ''[[Vanderstock v Victoria]]''<ref>{{Cite news |last=Perkins |first=Miki |date=18 October 2023 |title='Caught everyone off guard': High Court zaps state electric vehicle tax |url=https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/electric-vehicle-court-ruling-ups-pressure-for-federal-approach-20231018-p5ed55.html |access-date=10 April 2024 |work=Sydney Morning Herald |language=en}}</ref>
[[File:The Hon Chief Justice Stephen Gageler AC.png|thumb|Stephen Gageler]]

=== Gageler court: November 2023 – Present ===

[[Stephen Gageler]] was appointed Chief Justice in November 2023.

Notable decisions of the Gageler court include:

* ''[[Commonwealth v Yunupingu]]''
* ''[[NZYQ v Minister for Immigration]]''

==Appointment process, composition, and working conditions==

{{main|List of Justices of the High Court of Australia}}

===Appointment and tenure===

High Court Justices are appointed by the [[Governor-General of Australia|Governor-General in Council]].<ref>Constitution s 72(i).</ref> The advice of the Council typically consists of the [[Advice (constitutional law)|advice]] of the prime minister assisted by the [[Attorney-General for Australia]].  Advice from the attorney-general is legally required by implication, because since 1979 the attorney-general has been required by statute to consult the attorneys-general of the states (but not the territories).<ref>{{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|hcoaa1979233|High Court of Australia Act 1979|6}}.</ref> Some reformers have advocated for states to have a determinative role.<ref name="companion HCA Act">{{cite book |last=Durack |first=Peter |title=The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001 |isbn=0-19-554022-0 |editor1-last=Blackshield |editor1-first=Tony |location=South Melbourne, Victoria |chapter=High Court of Australia Act |editor2-last=Coper |editor2-first=Michael |editor3-last=Williams |editor3-first=George |editor3-link=George Williams (lawyer)}}</ref>

Originally, no particular qualifications for appointment to the High Court were required by the Constitution or by statute. The only constitutional requirement is that the appointee be under the compulsory retirement age of 70.<ref>Constitution s 72.</ref> Further qualifications were introduced by statute in 1979: that an appointee be a judge of a federal, state or territory court; or have been an Australian legal practitioner for at least five years.<ref>{{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|hcoaa1979233|High Court of Australia Act 1979|7}}.</ref><ref name="companion appointment">{{cite book |last=Evans |first=Simon |title=The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001 |isbn=0-19-554022-0 |editor1-last=Blackshield |editor1-first=Tony |location=South Melbourne, Victoria |chapter=Appointment of Justices |editor2-last=Coper |editor2-first=Michael |editor3-last=Williams |editor3-first=George |editor3-link=George Williams (lawyer)}}</ref> Unlike members of the [[Parliament of Australia|Parliament]], it is not necessary to be an [[Australian Citizen]] and a member of the Court may be a dual citizen.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-17/fact-check-can-high-court-justices-be-dual-citizens/9748320 |title=Fact check: Can High Court justices be dual citizens? |newspaper=ABC News |date=17 May 2018}}</ref>

The appointment process has been relatively uncontroversial.<ref group="Note">Especially in comparison to the appointment process of the United States. See: [[Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States#Confirmation|US Supreme Court confirmation hearings]]</ref>  This has, however, been due in part to the opacity of the process. There is no procedure for application, the only definite criteria are the minimal criteria above, and nothing is publicly known until an appointee is announced. Appointment to federal courts was extensively formalised in 2007, except for the High Court, and those reforms were reversed by the next federal government. Some recent attorneys-general have stated that they were consulting widely{{mdash}}to include, for instance, Australian Women Lawyers, the National Association of Commonwealth Legal Centres and the heads of Australian law schools.<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Williams|editor1-first=George|editor1-link=George Williams (lawyer)|editor2-last=Brennan|editor2-first=Sean|editor3-last=Lynch|editor3-first=Andrew|title=Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory: Commentary and Materials|location=Annandale|publisher=Federation P|edition=7|year=2018|pages=524–7|isbn=9781760021511}}</ref>  However, the nature of the attorney-general's consultations remains almost wholly discretionary.

Some appointments to the High Court have displayed clear political influence. Three early justices had been conservative politicians prior to their appointment as chief justice;<ref group="Note">Knox, Latham, and Barwick</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6YYg4wYomTYC&pg=PA248 |title=Australian Constitutional Landmarks |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2003 |isbn=052183158X |editor1=Lee, H.P. |editor1-link=Hoong Phun Lee |pages=248–50 |editor2=Winterton, G |editor2-link=George Winterton}}</ref> and Justices [[H. V. Evatt]], [[Edward McTiernan]], and [[Lionel Murphy]] were all [[Labor Party (Australia)|Labor party]] politicians at some stage in their careers prior to being appointed to the High Court by a Labor prime minister.<ref>{{cite book|last=Hocking|first=Jenny|title=Lionel Murphy: a political biography|location=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge UP|year=2000|pages=220–9|isbn=0521794854}}</ref>
 
Members of the Court are required to retire when they reach the age of 70.<ref>Constitution s 72.</ref> This requirement was introduced by constitutional [[1977 Australian referendum (Retirement of judges)|amendment in 1977]].<ref>''Constitution Alteration (Retirement of Judges) 1977'' (Cth) and subsequent referendum.</ref>  Previously, there had been no retirement age and Sir [[Edward McTiernan]] had served for 46 years until being persuaded to retire at age 84.  Retired members of the Court do not retain the title of 'Chief Justice' or 'Justice'.<ref>{{Cite web |title=How do I address a High Court judge? |url=https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/education/How%20to%20address%20a%20high%20court%20justice.pdf |access-date=22 May 2025 |website=High Court of Australia}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=3 March 2025 |title=Judiciary |url=https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/titles-honours-forms-address/judiciary |access-date=22 May 2025 |website=Australian Government Style Manual}}</ref>

===Composition===

The High Court has seven justices{{mdash}}the chief justice and six other justices.

{{As of|2025}} the High Court has had 57 justices, fourteen of whom have been chief justice.<ref>{{cite web |title=Former Justices |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/justices/former-justices |access-date=26 October 2016 |publisher=High Court |archive-date=7 December 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161207151952/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/justices/former-justices |url-status=live}}</ref>

{{Current High Court of Australia justices}}

==== Initial composition ====

[[File:Hca bench and officials 1903.jpg|thumb|The first bench of the High Court: Barton, Griffith and O'Connor seated, with court officials in the background. Photo taken at the first sitting of the court on 6 October 1903.]]

The first High Court bench consisted of three justices: Samuel Griffith, Edmund Barton, and Richard O'Connor.<ref>{{cite web |title=History of the High Court |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/history |access-date=26 October 2016 |publisher=High Court |archive-date=10 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161110214406/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/history |url-status=live}}</ref>

According to the contemporary press, among those considered and overlooked were [[H.B. Higgins|Henry Higgins]], [[Isaac Isaacs]], [[Andrew Inglis Clark|Andrew Clark]], [[John Downer]], [[Josiah Symon]], and [[George Wise (Australian politician)|George Wise]].{{sfn|Dixon & Williams (eds)|loc=Ch 5 The Griffith Court by John M Williams}}

Barton and O'Connor were both members of the federal parliament's government bench. Each appointee had participated in the drafting of the Constitution. All three have been described as relatively conservative justices for the time, and were strongly influenced by law of the United States in their constitutional jurisprudence.{{sfn|Dixon & Williams (eds)|loc=Ch 5 The Griffith Court by John M Williams}}

==== Expansion of the court ====

In 1906, at the request of the Justices, two seats were added to the bench, with Isaacs and Higgins being appointed.

After O'Connor's death in 1912, an amendment was made to the ''[[Judiciary Act 1903|Judiciary Act]]'' expanding the bench to seven, which took place the following year.

Following Isaacs' retirement in 1931, his seat was left vacant, and an amendment to the ''[[Judiciary Act 1903|Judiciary Act]]'' reduced the number of seats to six. This, however, led to some decisions being split three-all.<ref>Rules for managing a split are provided in {{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|ja1903112|Judiciary Act 1903|23}}.</ref>

With the appointment of Justice [[William Webb (judge)|Webb]] in 1946, the court returned to seven seats, and has had a full bench of seven justices since.{{sfn|Dixon & Williams (eds)|loc=pp. 78–80, 118–119, 141–143, 160,161}}

====Historical and Current demographics====

Only seven of the High Court's fifty-six justices have been women.

[[File:Gaudron, Gillard, Bryce, Roxon after swearing-in ceremony.jpg|thumb| [[Mary Gaudron]] (left) with Prime Ministe [[Julia Gillard]], Governor-General [[Quentin Bryce]], Attorney-General [[Nicola Roxon]] in 2011]]
The first female appointee to the bench was [[Mary Gaudron]] (who was a justice from 1987 to 2003), the second was [[Susan Crennan]] (who was a justice from 2005 to 2015), and the third [[Virginia Bell (judge)|Virginia Bell]] from 2009 to 2021. 

As of October 2022, for the first time there is now a female majority of the justices on the current bench with justices [[Susan Kiefel]], [[Michelle Gordon (judge)|Michelle Gordon]], [[Jacqueline Gleeson]], and [[Jayne Jagot]] (as replacement for [[Patrick Keane]])<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-29/jayne-jagot-announced-new-high-court-judge/101485134 |last=Doran |first=Matthew |title=History made as High Court has majority-female bench after Jayne Jagot appointment |website=ABC News |date=29 September 2022 |access-date=29 September 2022}}</ref>

In 2017, Justice Kiefel became the [[List of the first women appointed to Australian judicial positions|first woman to be appointed Chief Justice]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Williams |first=George |date=30 January 2017 |title=Susan Kiefel: Australia's first female chief justice |url=http://www.smh.com.au/comment/susan-kiefel-australias-first-female-chief-justice-20170127-gtzzq1.html |access-date=30 January 2017 |work=The Sydney Morning Herald |archive-date=29 January 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170129045155/http://www.smh.com.au/comment/susan-kiefel-australias-first-female-chief-justice-20170127-gtzzq1.html |url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Michael Kirby (judge)|Michael Kirby]] was the first openly gay justice of the Court. He was replaced by [[Virginia Bell (judge)|Virginia Bell]], who was the first lesbian justice on the bench.<ref name="Bell2008">{{cite news |author=Pely, Michael |date=20 December 2008 |title=NSW Supreme Court farewells High Court appointee Virginia Bell |work=The Australian |url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24826156-17044,00.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20121215222841/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24826156-17044,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=15 December 2012 |access-date=2 March 2012}}</ref>

Twenty-eight appointees have been residents of New South Wales, twenty-five of which graduated from [[Sydney Law School]]. Sixteen have come from Victoria, eight from Queensland, and four from Western Australia. No resident of South Australia, Tasmania, or any of the territories has ever been appointed to the bench.

The majority of justices have been of [[Protestant]] backgrounds, with a smaller number of a [[Catholic]] background. Two Jewish members have been appointed, Sir [[Isaac Isaacs]] and [[James Edelman]],<ref>{{cite news |last1=Levi |first1=Joshua |date=1 December 2016 |title=Judge and Jewry |work=Australian Jewish News |url=https://www.jewishnews.net.au/judge-and-jewry/56870 |access-date=28 July 2019 |archive-date=28 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190728012410/https://www.jewishnews.net.au/judge-and-jewry/56870 |url-status=live}}</ref> making them the only members of the court to have a faith background other than [[Christianity]]. However, many justices have refrained from commenting publicly upon their religious views.

Almost all judges on the High Court have taken silk in some form prior to their appointment, in the form of appointment to [[King's Counsel|King's Counsel (KC)]], Queen's Counsel (QC) or [[Senior Counsel|Senior Counsel (SC)]]. The exceptions are [[Hayden Starke|Starke]], [[Edward McTiernan|McTiernan]], Webb, [[Cyril Walsh|Walsh]], Kirby, [[Robert French|French]], [[James Edelman|Edelman]] and [[Jayne Jagot|Jagot]].

Thirteen justices of the court previously served in a Parliament, however no previous parliamentarian has been appointed to the court since [[Lionel Murphy]] in 1975.

=== Working conditions ===

Salaries are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The regular justices receive $551,880, while the Chief justice receives $608,150.<ref>[https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-s-top-judges-get-a-pay-rise Australia's top judges get a pay rise] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180221222451/https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-s-top-judges-get-a-pay-rise |date=21 February 2018 }}, [[SBS News]], 10 October 2017. Retrieved 21 February 2018.</ref><ref>[http://www.remtribunal.gov.au/media/documents/2018/2017-determinations/2017-09-principal-determination-judicial-and-related-offices-remuneration-and-allowances/2017-09-Judicial-and-Related-Offices-Principal-Determination-1.7.2017.pdf Determination 2017/09: Judicial and Related Offices – Remuneration and Allowances] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180222043852/http://www.remtribunal.gov.au/media/documents/2018/2017-determinations/2017-09-principal-determination-judicial-and-related-offices-remuneration-and-allowances/2017-09-Judicial-and-Related-Offices-Principal-Determination-1.7.2017.pdf |date=22 February 2018 }}, Remuneration Tribunal. Retrieved 21 February 2018.</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Conde |first1=John |last2=Zampatti |first2=Heather |title=Remuneration Tribunal (Judicial and Related Offices—Remuneration and Allowances) Determination 2021 |url=https://www.remtribunal.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-06/Remuneration%20Tribunal%20%28Judicial%20and%20Related%20Offices%E2%80%94Remuneration%20and%20Allowances%29%20Determination%C2%A02021.PDF |publisher=Remuneration Tribunal |access-date=30 March 2022}}</ref> High Court judicial compensation is constitutionally protected from decrease during appointment.<ref>{{Cite web |title=COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 72 Judges' appointment, tenure, and remuneration |url=http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s72.html |access-date=2021-06-02 |website=classic.austlii.edu.au |archive-date=11 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201111201113/http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s72.html |url-status=live}}</ref>

The court typically sits for two weeks for each calendar month of the year, excepting for January and July in which no sitting days are held.<ref>{{Cite web |title=HCA SITTINGS 2021 |url=https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/registry/court-calendars/2021calendar.pdf |url-status=live |website=hcourt.gov.au |access-date=2 June 2021 |archive-date=7 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210307130120/https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/registry/court-calendars/2021calendar.pdf}}</ref>

====Judicial associates====

Each judge engages associates for assistance in exercising their functions. The usual practice is to engage two associates simultaneously for a one-year term. Additionally, the chief justice is assisted by a legal research officer employed by the court library.

Associates have varying responsibilities; typically their work involves legal research, assistance in preparation for oral arguments, [[Tipstaff|tipping]] in court during oral argument, editing judgments and assisting with extrajudicial functions, such as speech-writing.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Young |first1=Katherine |title=Open Chambers: High Court Associates and Supreme Court Clerks Compared |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2007/26.html |journal= |access-date=21 February 2018 |archive-date=22 February 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180222043702/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2007/26.html |url-status=live}} (2007) 31(2) Melbourne University Law Review 646.</ref> Associates are typically recruited after having graduated from an Australian law school with grades at or near the top of their class.<ref name="associate">{{cite web |title=Applying for an associateship with a Justice of the High Court of Australia |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/employment/applying-for-an-associateship-with-a-justice-of-the-high-court-of-australia |publisher=High Court of Australia |access-date=2 May 2016 |archive-date=9 May 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160509201623/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/employment/applying-for-an-associateship-with-a-justice-of-the-high-court-of-australia |url-status=live}}</ref> Hundreds of applications for associate positions are received by the High Court annually.<ref name="associate" />

Many High Court associates have gone on to illustrious careers. Examples of former associates include [[Nicola Roxon]], [[Adrienne Stone]] and [[George Williams (lawyer)|George Williams]].

Three High Court justices served as associates prior to their elevation to the bench: [[Keith Aickin|Aickin]] to [[Sir Owen Dixon|Dixon]], [[Stephen Gageler|Gageler]] to [[Sir Anthony Mason|Mason]], and [[James Edelman|Edelman]] to [[John Toohey (judge)|Toohey]].<ref>{{cite news |author=Feneley, Rick |date=10 January 2009 |title=The boy from Sandy Hollow |work=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]] |url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-boy-from-sandy-hollow/2009/01/09/1231004286973.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2 |access-date=3 May 2016 |archive-date=29 December 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171229065436/http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-boy-from-sandy-hollow/2009/01/09/1231004286973.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2 |url-status=live}}</ref>

==Facilities==

===Building===

{{Main|High Court of Australia Building}}

The High Court of Australia building is located on the shore of [[Lake Burley Griffin]] in Canberra's [[Parliamentary Triangle]]. The High Court was designed between 1972 and 1974 by the Australian architect [[Christopher Kringas]] (1936–1975), a director of the firm Edwards Madigan Torzillo and Briggs. The building was constructed from 1975 to 1980. Its international architectural significance is recognised by the Union of International Architects register of Architectural Heritage of the 20th Century. It received the Australian Institute of Architects Canberra Medallion in 1980 and the award for Enduring Architecture in 2007. The High Court was added to the [[Commonwealth Heritage List]] in 2004.<ref name="AHD" />

===Online===

The High Court makes itself generally available to the public through its own website.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au |title=Home page |publisher=High Court of Australia |access-date=21 February 2014 |archive-date=30 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180630024830/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Judgment alerts, available on the Court's website and by email with free subscription, provide subscribers with notice of upcoming judgments (normally a week beforehand) and, almost immediately after the delivery of a major judgment, with a brief summary of it (normally not more than one page). All of the court's judgments, as well as transcripts of its hearings since 2009 and other materials, are made available, free of charge, through the [[Australasian Legal Information Institute]]. The court has recently<!--in 2017?--> established on its website an "eresources" page, containing for each case its name, keywords, mentions of relevant legislation and a link to the full judgment; these links go to the original text from 2000 onward, scanned texts from 1948 to 1999 and facsimiles from the ''Commonwealth Law Reports'' for their first 100 volumes (1903 to 1959); there are also facsimiles of some unreported judgments (1906–2002).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au |title=High Court of Australia: eresources |access-date=27 October 2017 |archive-date=26 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171026220648/http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Since October 2013, audio-visual recordings of full-court hearings held in Canberra have been available on its website.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/recent-av-recordings |title=High Court of Australia: Recent AV recordings |access-date=21 February 2014 |archive-date=20 February 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140220075039/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/recent-av-recordings |url-status=live}}</ref>

==Gallery==

<gallery>
Court 1 at the High Court of Australia.jpg|The No. 1 Courtroom, used for all cases that require a full bench of seven justices<ref>{{cite web |title=The building |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/the-building |website=High Court of Australia |access-date=5 February 2018 |archive-date=10 February 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180210203626/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/the-building |url-status=live}}</ref>
High Court Australia-01JAC.jpg|High Court building
High Court of Australia (3464508241).jpg|Entry hall
</gallery>

==See also==

{{stack| {{Portal|Australia|Law}}}}
*[[Judiciary of Australia#Australian court hierarchy|Australian court hierarchy]]
*''[[Judiciary Act 1903]]''
*[[Judiciary of Australia]]
*[[Law of Australia]]
*[[List of chief justices of Australia by time in office]]
*[[List of High Court of Australia cases]]
*[[List of justices of the High Court of Australia]]
*[[List of law schools attended by Australian High Court justices]]

== Notes ==
<references group="Note" />

== References ==
{{reflist}}

=== Attribution ===
{{AHD-CC|name=High Court of Australia, King Edward Tce, Parkes, ACT, Australia|id=105557|fileno=8/01/000/0537|year=2004 |accessdate=20 May 2020}}

==Further reading==
*{{cite journal |first=Sarah |last=Burnside |title=Australian Judicial Biography: Past, Present and Future |journal=Australian Journal of Politics and History |date=2011 |volume=57 |issue=2 |page=221 |issn=0004-9522 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8497.2011.01593.x}}
*{{cite journal |url=http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/394-2.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170219100256/http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/394-2.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=19 February 2017 |last1=Carter |first1=David J. |last2=Brown |first2=James |last3=Rahmani |first3=Adel |title=Reading the High Court at a Distance: Topic Modelling the Legal Subject Matter and Judicial Activity of the High Court of Australia, 1903–2015 |journal=University of New South Wales Law Journal |date=2016 |volume=39 |issue=2 |page=1300}}
*{{cite book |last=Fricke |first=Graham |title=Judges of the High Court |date=1986 |publisher=Hutchinson of Australia |location=Hawthorn, Victoria |isbn=978-0-09-157150-4}}

==External links==
{{Commons}}
*[http://www.hcourt.gov.au/ High Court of Australia official website]
*[http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/high-court-documentary High Court Documentary], a short documentary on the High Court and its building.
*[http://filmartmedia.com/?p=407 ''The Highest Court''] Documentary film, 1998, DVD. Only film ever permitted to be made of the High Court in session, before video recordings of its proceedings.<!-- Some extracts are on YouTube (at 1 June 2012) -->
*[https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2022C00081 ''Judiciary Act 1903'' (Cth)]
*[https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00966 ''High Court of Australia Act 1979'' (Cth)]

{{Oceania topic|Supreme Court of|title=Supreme Courts of Oceania |countries_only=yes}}
{{Politics of Australia}}
{{Constitution of Australia|state=collapsed}}
{{Australian Courts}}
{{Justices of the High Court of Australia|state=collapsed}}
{{Lake Burley Griffin}}
{{Canberra landmarks}}
{{Portal bar|Law|Australia}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:High Court of Australia| ]]
[[Category:1903 establishments in Australia]]
[[Category:1975 Australian constitutional crisis]]
[[Category:Australian appellate courts]]
[[Category:Australian constitutional law]]
[[Category:Law of Nauru]]
[[Category:Courts and tribunals established in 1903]]