{"id":"supreme-court-rules-of-procedure-act-1987","name":"Supreme Court (Rules of Procedure) Act 1987","slug":"supreme-court-rules-of-procedure-act-1987","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"nt","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":30550,"registerId":"nt-supreme-court-rules-of-procedure-act-1987-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Supreme Court (Rules of Procedure) Act 1987","content":"Ì\nr\nI\nI\nd\nt\nII\nI\nII\nt\nI\ni\nì\nNORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA\nNo. 37 of I9B7\nPART I - PRELIMINARY\n1. SHORT TITLE\nThís Act may be cíted as the Supreme Court (RuLes of\nProcedure) Act 7987.\n2, COMMENCEMENT\nAN ACT\nlAssented to 13 October, 1987]\nT)E it enacted by the Legislltive Assem.b.ly.of the, Norther¡ Territory of\nö \" Àñäúr\",- *i1¡, the issent as prt''vitló.1 by the N,rrher¡r Territory\n(Se1Í'-Government) Act l97B of the Commonweâlth' ¿ìs follows:\nf\nI\nI\ni\nI\nI\n!\ni\nf\n,f\ni\n;\nI\n(1 ) Sectíons 1\nthe day on which th\nis given.\nand 2 shall come into oPeration on\ne Adminístratorrs assent to this Act\n(2) The remaining provisions of thís Act shall come\ninto operation on a date to be fixed by the Admínistrator\nby notice ín the Gazette.\n3. PRINCIPAL ACT\nThe Supreme Court Act is in this Act referred to as\nthe Principal Act.\nGovgmm€nt Prinler ot lhe Nonh6m Temlory\nPr¡ce: S1 10\n\nSuprene Court (Rules of Procedure)\n4. REPEAL\n(1) The Rul-es of the Supreme Court of the Northern\nTerritory of Australia comprísíng the Statutory Rules and\nRegulations specified in the Schedule (other than Orders\n64 and 69, and the Second and Fourth Schedules to, those\nRules) are repealed.\n(2) The Supreme Court (Justíces Appeals) Rules,\ncomprísing Statutory Rules L969, No. 167, are repealed.\n5. DEFINITION\nIn this Act ttnerd Rulestt means the Rules of the\nSupreme Court ratified, va1ídated and approved under\nsectioû 6(1) or, except in section 7, those Rules as\n¡mended from time to time.\nPART II - VALIDATION OF RULES\n6. VALIDATION OF NET' RULES\n(1) The Ru1es of the Supreme Court conditionally\nmade by the Judges of the Supreme Court on 31 JuIy 1987\nand subsequently tabled in the Legislative Assembly are by\nthis Act rãtífíed, validated and approved.\nTo the extent that the new Rules are, or a direction\nunder section 9 Ís, inconsístent wlth the Príncípal Act as\n¡mended by this Act or with any other Act, those Rules or\nthat directíon, as the case may be, shall prevail.\nPART III - INTERIM PROVISIONS\n8. AMENDMENT oF RULES\n(2) The ne$r Rules are for all purposes\nfor the purpose of beíng amended) to be taken\nof Court duly made under the Princípal Act by\nof the Supreme Court.\n7 . CONFLICT BEThTEEN NEId RULES, &c. , AND ACTS\nFor the purposes only of av.oiding\nin the new Ru1es or between the new Rules\n(a) the Principal Act as amended\n(b) any other Act,\n( including\nto be Rules\nthe Judges\nan ínconsistency\nand -\nby thís Act; or\nthe e Supreme Court $/ho are not actíng or\nadd r .or a majority of them, rây nake Rules\nof the new Rules notwithstanding that, but\nf.or they may not have the power tõ make such\nRuI\n2\n\nSupreme Court (Rules of Procedure)\n9. CHIEF JUSTICE MAY GIVE DIRECTIONS\n(1 ) For the PurPos\ntency in the new Rules\n(a) the Principal Act as amended by thís Act; or\n(b) any other Act'\nbut without limiting the Chief Justícers powers under\nsection 72 of the Prlncipal Act as amended by this Act,\nthe Chief Justice may give directions relating to a matter\nof practice or procedure of the Court notlsithstanding\nthal, but for this section, the Chief Justíce may not have\nthe power to give such a direction, and the matter shall\nbe governed according to those directions.\n(2) A under subsection (1) which,\nbut for that beyond the power of the Chief\nJustice to g s sooner approved by Rules of\nCourt made u have no force or effect after\nthe expirâtion of 6 months after the date on which ít was\ngaven.\n10. TIME LII4IT oN EXERCISE OF PO\\47ER UNDER THIS PART\nRules of Court shall not be made under sectíon 8 nor\na direction given under section 9(1) Iater than 5 years\nafter the commencement of this Act (other than sectíons 1\nand 2 of this Act).\nPART IV - CONSEQUENTIAL A}ÍENDMENTS\n11. INTERPRETATION\nSection 9 of the Principal Act ís amended -\n(a) by omitting the definition of \"Rules\" and\nsubstituting the following:\n'rtRulesr means the Rules of Court made under this\nAct or ratífíed, validated and approved under\nthe Supreme Court (Rufes of Procedure) ¿'ct\n7987; \"; and\nby adding at the end the following:\ne only of avoiding\nbetween the nerl an inconsis-\nRules and -or\nre Northern\n¡ Rules and\n:han Orders\nto, those\n-s ) Rules,\nrepealed.\nes of the\nrved under\nRules as\nditionatly\nJuly 1987\nbly are by\n( incì-uding\no be Ru1es\nthe Judges\ndirec tion\npal Act as\ne Rules or\nL.\n)nsistency\nAct; or\nacting or\nake Rules\nthat, but\nmake such\nI\nI\nt\nI\nI\nI\n¡\n(b)\n\" (2)\nIegislatíve\n(a) a\nIn this or any other Act or an instrument of a\nor administratíve charact.er, a reference to -\nrule or decree of the Court shall be taken to\na reference to an order of the Court; or\nI\nbe\n(b) a writ of prohibition, mandamus or certiorari\nby which the Court had before the corrunencement\nof Parts II and IV of the Supreme Court (¡ules\nof Procedure) ect 7987 jurisdiction to grant\n3\n\nsupreme Court (Ãu-Zes of Procedure)\nrelief or a remedY shal1 be taken to\n.\"i...t \"\" to the judgment by which the\nfrây, aft.er that commencement, grant that\ncrr\" ietnudy under this Act and the Rules' \" '\nbea\nCourt\nrel ie f\nF\n12. NEl{ SECTION\nThe Principal Act is amended by inserting in Part I'\nafter section 9, the following:\n''94, ABOLITION OF DISTINCTION BETI.{EEN COURT AND CITAMBERS\nchambers is\n\" (1) The distinction\nabolished.\nbetween court and\nAct in\nII and\n7987 a\nJudge -\nq\n\"(2) Nothing in subsection (1) al-ters the practice\n\"rra ptà.\"d,r.\" of -the Court with respect to business that\n\"\"tr ú\" conducted otherwise than ín open court'\n\"(3) The business of the Court, whether conducted\nin courL or otherwise, shall be taken to be conducted in\ncourt.\n\"(4) Where by or under this or any other\nforce irrmediately before the commencement of Parts\nlV of the Supreme court (Rules of Procedure) Act\njurisdiction ' Po\\^/er or authority is vested in a\n(a) the jurisdictíon, Power or.' exerclsed ín accordance with\nRules bY the Court in all\nJudge míght have done; and\nwithout appeal an appeal does not fie from a determlnation\nof the Court. \" .\nauthorltY may be\nthis Act and the\nrespects âs that\nti\n4\n\nr)\nrken to be a\nLch the Court\nt that rel-ief\nlles . tt ,\nlng in Part I,\n. AND CTIAMBERS\nd chambers is\nthe practice\nbusiness that\nher conducted\nr conducted in\nother Act ín\n: Parts lI and\ne) Act 7987 a\nin a Judge -\nority may be\n; Act and the\nrects as that\n1ce with this\noûr power and\njurisdiction,\nother Act in\n: Parts II and\ne) Act 7987 a\nr the Court or\nt' , rthe Court\nr, or by words\njurlsdiction,\nthe Court in\nrstanding that\nhority in the\nJudge as the\nd to hear and\nrt the deter-\nt appeal, but\nbe final or\ndetermination\nSupreme Court (Rul-es of Procedure)\n13. CONSTITUTION\nSectionllofthePrincipalActisamended-\n(a) by omitting sulsections (1) and\nslbstituting tht followíng:\n\" (1) The court consists of the Judges\nMaster.\nfiì (2) and\nand the\nrI\n,'(2) The Court shall\nJudges' or, in a case where\nîtã?-1. maY be constituted\n\"iiaittg \"\"á exercising the\nand\nbe constituted bY a Judge .or-án -ect or the Rules Provide\nbv the llaster, bY the Ìlaster '\"joü\"¿i\"tio\" of the Court'rt;\n(b) bY omitting subsection (3) '\n14. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION\nSection 15 of the Princípal Act is amended -\n(a) by omitting from paragtaph (b) t'sitting in\nCourtt'; and\n(b) by omítting \"paragraph (c)\"'\n15. REPEAL\nSection 16 of the Prlncipal Act is repealed'\n\\6, FULL COURT\nSection 2L(2) of the Principal Act 'ís amended by\nomirring \"make\" <1ttJi \";;;t;i*i ãï¿ substituting \"made'r'\nI7. EXERCISE OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION\nSection 52 of the Principal Act is amended -\n(a) by omitting from s.ubsection (3) \"sittíng in\nCourt or inlChambersr'; and\n(b) bY omittíng subsection (4)'\n18. INJUNCTIONS AND RECEIVERS\nSection 69(1) of the Prlncípal Act ís amended by\nomitting \"a mandamus orr''\n19. CHANGE OF VENUE\nSectíon 83(3) of the Principal Act is amended by\nomitting \"to a Judge in Chambers\" '\nII{.\n5\n\nSupreme Court (Rules of Procedure)\n20. AMENDMENT OF LITLITATION ACT\nThe Limitation Act is amended bY\nDivisíon 2 of ParL ìtV, before section 49'\n,,484. ABROGATION OF RULE TN WELDON V NEAL\nSCHEDULE\nf'ti\nll'i\n\" (1) If a court would\nrelevant Period of linitatio\nin the còurt has commenced\ndocument in the Proceedlng,\namendment to be made if it\nparty to the Proceedíng woul\nt\" prejudiced in the condu<\ndefence in a way that could not be met by an adjournment'\nan award of costs or otherwise'\n\" (2) This section does not apply to an amenclment in\na proceedíng \"o**á,,t\"¿ before thå- Corunencement of this\nsection. \".\ninserting in\nthe following:\nSection 4\nSTATUTORY RULES AND REGULATIONS COMPRISING\nRULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE\nNORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA\n1966\n1967\n1-97 0\nr97 2\n797 4\nr97 4\nL91 5\nt97 8\n1980\n1981\nL982\n1,982\n1983\n1986\n1986\n1987\nNo,\nNo.\nNo.\nNo.\nNo.\nNo.\nNo.\nNo,\nNo.\nNo.\nNo,\nNo.\nNo.\nNo.\nNo,\nNo.\n178\nL4\n208\n86\nL02\n103\nr64\n18\n42\n6\n+\n5t\nJJ\n4\n27\n77\ntl\n()","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act broadens the procedural lawmaking and interim-governance scope held by the judiciary compared with the prior, statutory-Rules structure. It does so by (a) ratifying a new Rules package and making those Rules prevail over inconsistent statutory provisions (section 6(2)); (b) authorising short-term procedural directions by the Chief Justice with six-month sunsets (section 9(1)–(2)); (c) abolishing the court/chambers distinction and treating business conducted otherwise than in open court as conducted in court (new section 94(1)–(3)); and (d) formally changing who may constitute and act for the Court (inserting the Master into the constitution of the Court, section 13). These measures shift the practical locus of procedural decision-making to the Judges and Chief Justice for a defined transitional period (see sections 4, 6, 9, 10, 11–13)."},"complexity_factors":["Validation clause that makes newly ratified Rules prevail over inconsistent statutory provisions (section 6(2))","Wide-ranging amendments to the Principal Act across multiple sections to remove 'in chambers' language and to redefine court constitution and procedure (sections 11–19, new section 94)","Transitional mechanisms combining ratification, temporary Chief Justice directions with six-month sunsets, and a five-year outer limit on transitional rulemaking (sections 6, 9, 10)","Extensive repeal and replacement of prior statutory Rules listed in a Schedule, requiring cross-referencing and administrative updating (section 4, Schedule)","Addition of the Master to the Court's constitution and allowance for constitution by Judge or Master per Rules, which alters who may exercise powers and affects delegation (section 13)","Insertion of a new limitation-related provision (section 484) with substantive effects on amendment of proceedings (section 20), increasing interaction between procedural rules and substantive limitation law","Some textual fragmentation and drafting density in the Act and consequential amendments that require careful reading to trace legal effects and interactions (various sections and Schedule)"],"plain_english_summary":"What this Act does (mechanics)\n\n- Repeals the prior statutory Rules of the Supreme Court listed in the Schedule (with limited exceptions) and ratifies a new set of Rules that the Judges made on 31 July 1987 (see sections 4, 6(1), Schedule).\n- Validates and approves those new Rules and makes them the operative Rules of Court; to the extent those new Rules conflict with the Principal Act (the Supreme Court Act) or with other Acts, the new Rules (or a direction under section 9) are made to prevail (see section 6(2)).\n- Treats the new Rules as Rules of Court for all purposes and as Rules made by the Judges under the Principal Act (see section 8).\n- Gives the Chief Justice the power to issue directions about practice and procedure that apply even where, absent this section, the Chief Justice might lack power to make them; such directions lapse after six months unless earlier approved by Rules of Court (see section 9(1)–(2)).\n- Limits the period during which Rules of Court may be made under this Part or directions given under section 9 to within five years of this Act's commencement (see section 10).\n- Amends the Principal Act in a range of places to reflect the new Rules-based procedure: it redefines \"Rules,\" removes language distinguishing business \"in court\" and \"in chambers,\" abolishes that distinction in practice and treats business conducted otherwise than in open court as conducted in court (new section 94, inserted by section 12), and adjusts who may constitute the Court (making the Court consist of the Judges and the Master and permitting constitution by a Judge or, where Rules allow, by the Master) (see section 13 and new section 94(1)–(3)).\n- Makes related, consequential changes across the Principal Act: removes repeated references to \"sitting in Court\" or \"in Chambers,\" repeals certain sections (for example section 16), and changes other wording and cross-references to align with the new procedural regime (see sections 14–19 and section 11 for the redefinition of \"Rules\").\n- Inserts a new provision in the Limitation Act (section 484) on the court's power to allow amendments in proceedings in circumstances where strict application of limitation rules would cause unfair prejudice (see section 20).\n- Lists (in the Schedule) the specific Statutory Rules and Regulations that previously comprised the Rules of the Supreme Court and that are affected by the repeal/validation exercise.\n\nWho this affects and how (practical consequences)\n\n- Judges and the Chief Justice: the Act confirms and centralises rulemaking and procedural direction-making powers in the judiciary (validation of Rules by Judges, power for Chief Justice to give directions) (see sections 6 and 9).\n- Court officers and the Master: the Master is expressly part of the Court's constitution and can exercise certain functions subject to the Rules (see section 13).\n- Lawyers, litigants and court users: they must follow the newly ratified Rules and any interim directions issued under section 9; familiar procedural references to \"in chambers\" are removed and business conducted otherwise than in open court is treated as being conducted in court (see section 94 and sections 4, 6, 9).\n- Statutory framework: for a limited time the new Rules (or directions) can operate even where inconsistent with the Principal Act or other Acts, because the Act makes the validated Rules prevail to the extent of inconsistency (see section 6(2)).\n\nWhy it matters (stated purpose and testing it against costs and trade-offs)\n\n- Stated purpose-claim in the text: to ratify, validate and approve a new set of Rules of the Supreme Court and to bring the Principal Act's language and structure into alignment with those Rules (see sections 4, 5, 6, 11, 12).\n\n- How that purpose is implemented (concrete mechanisms):\n  - The Judges' Rules are given immediate legal force by express ratification in the Act (s6(1)).\n  - Where those Rules conflict with statute, the Act declares the Rules (or an authorised direction) prevail to the extent of the inconsistency (s6(2)).\n  - The Chief Justice may issue short-term directions to govern practice where rulemaking gaps or uncertainties exist; those directions have a six-month life unless adopted as Rules (s9(1)–(2)).\n  - A five-year outer limit is placed on making Rules or giving directions under the transitional Part to avoid open-ended delegated change (s10).\n\n- Costs, incentives and trade-offs implied by those mechanisms (as found in the text):\n  - Concentration of procedural authority: Judges and the Chief Justice are the principal decision-makers about court procedure (s6, s9). That centralises procedural rulemaking in the judiciary; parties must adapt to practice determined by judicial rulemaking rather than by statute alone.\n  - Potential for statutory displacement: because validated Rules are made to prevail over inconsistent statutory provisions (s6(2)), there is a mechanism that can produce temporary misalignment between statute and procedure until statutes are amended or Rules are revised.\n  - Short-term administrative flexibility vs. legal certainty: the Chief Justice's power to issue directions (s9) gives a quick way to settle practice gaps, but those directions expire after six months (s9(2)), requiring either formal Rules later or return to pre-direction practice.\n  - Transitional and compliance burden: repeal and re-enactment of the Rules (s4, Schedule) require court staff, practitioners and litigants to learn and operate under the new Rules and revised statutory language (for example, removal of \"in chambers\" references) (sections 4, 11, 12–19). The Act imposes a period (up to five years) during which the transitional rulemaking regime applies (s10), after which routine amendment must follow ordinary processes.\n  - Redistribution of who may exercise functions: inserting the Master into the constitution of the Court and allowing constitution of the Court by a Judge or, where Rules provide, by the Master (s13) changes the set of officials who may act in particular procedural roles.\n\n- Implementation risks and administrative requirements in the text:\n  - The breadth of the validation clause (s6(2)) increases the importance of careful drafting and publication of the new Rules and the subsequent need to reconcile Rules and statutory text.\n  - The Schedule lists many prior statutory instruments that are being repealed (s4, Schedule), which creates a discrete administrative task of identifying, replacing and communicating affected procedural provisions (s4, Schedule).\n  - Temporary directions and the limited window for transitional rulemaking (s9(2), s10) place a scheduling and compliance task on the Court: ensure interim directions are converted into permanent Rules or allowed to lapse within the statutory timeframes.\n\nBottom-line, in plain terms\n\nThis Act replaces the existing statutory Rules of the Supreme Court with a new set ratified by the Judges, validates them (including to the extent they conflict with existing legislation), removes the traditional distinction between business \"in court\" and \"in chambers,\" clarifies who may constitute and act for the Court (including the Master), and creates short-term powers for the Chief Justice to issue procedural directions that lapse unless adopted as Rules. The Act shifts procedural authority to the judiciary for a defined transitional period and requires practitioners, parties and court administrators to adjust to the validated Rules and the amended statutory language (see sections 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11–13)."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The legislation remains tightly focused on its original purpose: validating new Supreme Court Rules, making consequential amendments to the Supreme Court Act, and providing interim measures to ensure smooth transition. The amendments to the Limitation Act (section 20) and the abolition of the court/chambers distinction are directly related to procedural reform. No significant scope creep detected."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple amendments to the 'Principal Act' (Supreme Court Act) requiring cross-referencing to understand the full effect","Conditional validation of Rules—new Rules only validated if they were 'conditionally made' on a specific date (31 July 1987) and tabled in Parliament","Temporary powers with sunset clauses—sections 8 and 9 powers expire after 5 years; directions under section 9(2) expire after 6 months unless approved by formal Rules","Technical transitional provisions dealing with jurisdictional continuity (section 12(4)) and the abrogation of a common law rule (*Weldon v Neal*)","Repeal of multiple statutory instruments listed in the Schedule (15 separate items dating 1966–1987)"],"plain_english_summary":"This legislation updates how the Northern Territory's Supreme Court operates, replacing old court rules with new ones and tidying up some legal technicalities.\n\n**What it does:**\n- **Replaces old court rules**: The existing Supreme Court Rules (a collection of regulations dating back to 1966) are repealed and replaced with new Rules made by the Judges in July 1987. These new Rules are formally approved and given legal force by this Act.\n- **Fixes inconsistencies**: If the new Rules clash with the Supreme Court Act or other laws, the Rules win out. The Chief Justice can also issue temporary directions to resolve any conflicts during a 5-year transition period.\n- **Abolishes the 'court vs chambers' distinction**: Previously, some judicial work happened 'in court' (open, formal hearings) and some 'in chambers' (private, less formal). This Act says that distinction no longer exists—all court business is treated as happening 'in court,' though some matters can still be heard privately if that's the usual practice.\n- **Updates terminology**: Old terms like 'rule,' 'decree,' and certain types of writs (legal orders like 'mandamus' or 'certiorari') are replaced with modern terms like 'order' and 'judgment.'\n- **Changes who can hear cases**: The Court can now be constituted by a single Judge or the Master (a senior court official), rather than requiring multiple Judges in some circumstances.\n- **Fixes a technical rule about time limits**: It overrides a strict common law rule (from an old English case called *Weldon v Neal*) that could prevent people from amending court documents even when the other side wouldn't be unfairly disadvantaged.\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- Anyone involved in litigation (court cases) in the Northern Territory Supreme Court—lawyers, litigants, and court staff.\n- The Judges and the Master of the Supreme Court, who now have clearer authority to make and apply court rules.\n\n**Why it matters:**\nThis is essentially 'machinery' legislation—it keeps the court system running smoothly by modernising procedures, removing outdated distinctions, and ensuring the court's own rules can operate effectively even if they technically conflict with older laws. It gives the judiciary more flexibility to manage cases efficiently."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/supreme-court-rules-of-procedure-act-1987","history":"/api/acts/supreme-court-rules-of-procedure-act-1987/history","analysis":"/api/acts/supreme-court-rules-of-procedure-act-1987/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/supreme-court-rules-of-procedure-act-1987/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/supreme-court-rules-of-procedure-act-1987/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/supreme-court-rules-of-procedure-act-1987/documents"}}