How do courts and parliament shape each other's law-making?
Explain the relationship between courts and parliament in making law, including how each influences and limits the other.
How parliament and courts each make law, the ways they influence and check one another, codification and abrogation, and why parliament is the supreme law-maker.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
You must explain how each body makes law, the ways they influence and limit each other, and why parliament is supreme.
The two law-makers
Statute law is made by parliament; common law is made by courts through decided cases. Neither works in isolation, and most areas of law involve both.
- Parliament can make law on any subject within its constitutional power, in advance and on a wide scale.
- Courts make law only when a case comes before them, developing principles through the doctrine of precedent and by interpreting statutes.
How parliament influences courts
Parliament shapes the work of courts in several ways.
- It passes statutes that courts must apply, which can replace or modify common law.
- It can codify the common law, gathering case-made principles into a single statute to provide certainty.
- It can abrogate an unwelcome court decision by legislating to change the law.
- It creates and structures the courts themselves through legislation.
How courts influence parliament
Courts also shape the law parliament makes.
- Through statutory interpretation, courts decide what the words of an Act actually mean, which can reveal gaps or ambiguities that prompt parliament to amend the law.
- Through precedent, courts develop principles that parliament may later adopt into statute.
- By highlighting injustice or uncertainty in their judgments, courts can effectively invite parliament to reform the law.
Why parliament is supreme
Although both make law, parliament is the supreme law-maker. Statute prevails over common law, so where the two conflict, the statute wins. Parliament can change or abolish common law principles, but courts cannot override a valid statute. Courts can only interpret statutes and, at the constitutional level, declare a law invalid if it breaches the Constitution, which is a limited check rather than general supremacy.
A complementary relationship
The relationship is best described as complementary. Parliament makes broad law efficiently and democratically; courts fill gaps, resolve disputes and adapt principles to new situations through precedent and interpretation. Each responds to the other, producing a legal system that combines democratic law-making with judicial refinement.
Connection to the rest of the course
This dot point ties together the legislative process, precedent, statutory interpretation and delegated legislation. It also connects to constitutional government, because the High Court's power to invalidate unconstitutional laws is the one situation where a court can override parliament.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SACE Board exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
2018 SACE Stage 22 marksDescribe one method used by parliament to supervise case law.Show worked answer →
For two marks, name a method and describe how it works.
One method is abrogation: where parliament disagrees with a common law principle developed by the courts, it passes legislation that overrides and cancels that decision, replacing the judge-made rule with statute. Because parliament is the supreme law-maker, its statute prevails over the common law.
Another method is codification: parliament collects and restates established common law principles in a single statute, confirming the law made by courts and giving it a clearer, more accessible statutory form. Either method shows parliament can confirm, change or reverse case law.
2018 SACE Stage 220 marks'Judges are more effective than parliaments and the executive in achieving the functions of law.' Using examples, evaluate this statement.Show worked answer →
A 20-mark "evaluate" needs a contention, balanced comparison with examples, and a sustained judgement. The functions of law include resolving disputes, protecting rights, maintaining order and reflecting community values.
- Where judges are effective
- Courts resolve specific disputes authoritatively and can develop the law to fill gaps and respond to injustice quickly (for example creating the law of negligence in Donoghue v Stevenson and recognising native title in Mabo). They are independent, apply the law impartially, and protect rights through judicial review without needing political support.
- Where parliaments and the executive are more effective
- Parliament is elected and can make comprehensive law on any subject in advance, after consultation and debate, reflecting community values directly; it can act proactively rather than waiting for a case. The executive implements and enforces the law day to day. Judges, by contrast, can only act when a case is brought, change law slowly and incrementally, and are limited to the issues before them.
- Judgement
- A strong answer concludes that no single arm is simply "more effective" - parliament leads in making broad, democratic, proactive law, the executive in enforcing it, and the courts in resolving disputes and protecting rights - and that the functions of law are best achieved by the three working together.