Henderson v Defence Housing Authority
Henderson v Defence Housing Authority, also known as the Residential Tenancies case, is a landmark Australian High Court decision on intergovernmental immunity and states' rights under the Australian Constitution. Facts of the case. Dr Henderson was the owner of a house which was leased by the Defence Housing Authority which used the property to provide accommodation for defence personnel. Dr Henderson the owner sought orders from the NSW Residential Tenancies Tribunal requiring the DHA to allow him to enter the premises for the purpose of inspection and give the owner a key to the premises . In response the DHA maintained that it was not bound by the "Residential Tenancies Act 1987" as it was immune from state laws about tenant disputes due to the Commonwealth government enjoying Crown immunity from State laws. The matter was heard before the High Court of Australia. Decision reached. It was established that the DHA was created under s. 61 of the Constitution (concerning the royal prerogative), so there was no actual law in which the state law could be in conflict. By a 6:1 majority (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ; Kirby J dissenting) the Court  held that the DHA is subject to the NSW Act. Four judges saw a distinction between the capacity of the crown which state law can’t affect and the exercise of the crown authority which state law could affect. One judge (McHugh) thought it was unrealistic to make that distinction, but held a state law could affect the manner in which the performance of commonwealth duty. By a 6:1 majority (McHugh J dissenting) the Court rejected the broad proposition that the Commonwealth cannot be bound by State legislation. However, by a 6:1 majority (Kirby J dissenting) also rejected the  argument that the Commonwealth's constitutional immunity from State law is no greater than the immunity which the States enjoy from Commonwealth law. Impact. "Henderson" is relevant in assessing how a State's legislative and executive actions may affect the Commonwealth's executive power, although a State's executive actions in that regard appear to be restricted to the area of royal prerogative. While there were majorities in favour of general concepts in the matter, there were differing views on specific aspects concerning the distribution of legislative power: The majority of Justices accepted that s. 64 of the "Judiciary Act  1903" did not apply, as the DHA was not a body that was subject to the "Cigamatic" doctrine. However, "Commonwealth v Evans Deakin Industries" had previously held that that provision will mean that a wide range of State laws may apply to the Commonwealth in circumstances where the doctrine applies.