Overview

• Type of Hearing: Appeal

• Submitted: 3 weeks ago (29/Jul/2026 12:49:54 PM UTC)
• Hearing Location:
• Hearing Verdict:

• Date Scheduled:
• Time Scheduled:

Information

Appeal Type
Case Rejection

---

Explain why your appeal should be successful
I submit this appeal under 'Case Rejection' due to a lack of a specific option in the selection form.

I respectfully submit that the Supreme Court reconsider its judicial review of the Employment (Amendment 8) Act 2026 because it contains procedural defects, contradictory legal reasoning, and findings that exceed the scope of the Supreme Court's authority under the Legislation Act 2025.

Firstly, the judicial review does not comply with Part 7, Section 1, Subsection 5 of the Legislation Act 2025, which requires that when the Supreme Court sends legislation to Stage 7F, it must include the reason for its determination, as well as the number of votes for each determination. While reasoning has been provided, the required number of votes has not been provided. As this is a statutory requirement, the judicial review itself fails to comply with the procedures prescribed by law.

Secondly, the judicial review concludes that the Employment (Amendment 3) Act 2026 has become a legislative orphan. However, Part 10, Section 1 of the Legislation Act 2025 explicitly provides that legislative orphans are to be identified and repealed by the Digital Services Administration, not by the Supreme Court during judicial review. I therefore question whether such a determination falls within the Court's jurisdiction at this stage.

Furthermore, even if such a determination were within the Court's authority, Amendment 3 cannot be considered as entirely overridden. Part 10, Section 2, Subsection 2 defines a legislative orphan as legislation that "has had all amendments entirely overridden by another Act". Employment (Amendment 8) Act 2026 did not reproduce every amendment introduced by Amendment 3. For example, the author mistakenly omitted Section 1, Subsection 2(1)(1) from Amendment 3. Consequently, Amendment 3 continued to have operative legal effect and therefore cannot satisfy the statutory definition of a legislative orphan. Additionally, a prior statute cannot be considered a legislative orphan by a superseding bill that has failed judicial review; since Amendment 8 was struck down, it holds no legal power to override or orphan Amendment 3, which logically remains active law.

Finally, the provided key constitutional issues appear inconsistent with a previous constitutional determination. Employment (Amendment 3) Act 2026 already introduced the concerning provisions, which successfully passed judicial review and became statute law. The current judicial review reaches the opposite constitutional conclusion without distinguishing the previous ruling or explaining why the constitutional position has changed.

---

Justification for the Action you're appealing
I appeal the decision sending the Employment (Amendment 8) Act 2026 to Stage 7F because the judicial review contains procedural issues and findings that are inconsistent with the governing legislation.

I require a new ruling due to:
Missing number of votes: the judicial review lacks the mandatory number of votes required by Part 7, Section 1, Subsection 5.
Jurisdictional overreach and paradox: the court cannot declare legislative orphans given the powers under Part 10, Section 1. Amendment 3 cannot be an orphan because Amendment 8 failed judicial review and never took its place.
Precedent contradiction: the exact provisions within Amendment 3 were already deemed constitutional and are active, whilst the publication requirement is paused due to digital services being considered/implemented.

While I request a new ruling on these points, I acknowledge the Court's concerns regarding the key constitutional issue and therefore respectfully submit that, should the key issues outlined by the Court be considered unconstitutional, the Court should consider whether the constitutional errors can be corrected through the statutory correction slips process under the Legislation Act 2025 rather than requiring the entirety of the legislation to fail judicial review.

Court Opinion

Written by dreckly on 15/Aug/2026 10:16:00 AM UTC

The matter before the Court concerns an appeal following the failed Judicial Review of the Employment (Amendment 8) Act 2026.

MAJORITY OPINION.—
The Court finds that the appeal should be heard.

P7, S1(4) of the Legislation Act 2025 expressly provides that a failed Judicial Review may be appealed by the bill creator a maximum of once, and that the Supreme Court may review the legislation again, with its subsequent decision being final. P7, S1(3) further recognises appeals as an exception to the general rule that the Supreme Court may only review legislation at Stage 6.

The Court therefore finds that a failed Judicial Review does not end the matter where the bill creator has properly exercised the statutory right of appeal. The question before the Court is not whether such an appeal is permitted, as the legislation already provides for it, but how that appeal should be considered.

The Court further finds that this matter properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As the appeal arises directly from a Judicial Review and P7, S1(4) specifically provides that the Supreme Court may review the legislation again, the matter shall be reclassified from AC-115 to SC-115.

In respect of procedure, the Court does not find that a completely new full hearing is required in this instance. The appeal submission, the original Judicial Review, and the arguments already provided give the Court enough information to consider the matter through an internal review and written report. This does not prevent the appellant from providing further arguments or clarification where necessary.

The Court also makes clear that this procedure should not be read as requiring every future Judicial Review appeal to be dealt with by report. Where an appeal raises substantial factual or legal issues that would benefit from a full hearing, the Court may determine that a hearing is appropriate. The procedure should depend on the circumstances of the appeal before the Court.

As this is the first appeal of this nature to be considered under P7, S1(4), a written opinion shall be issued at the conclusion of the Court's deliberations. That opinion shall set out both the procedure adopted for the appeal and the Court's final determination on the merits, so that clear guidance is available for future Judicial Review appeals.

Accordingly, the Court holds that:

1. The appeal is accepted and shall be heard;
2. The matter shall be reclassified as SC-115;
3. The appeal may be considered through internal review and report, without requiring an entirely new full hearing;
4. The appellant may submit further arguments for the Court's consideration; and A written majority opinion shall be issued following deliberations, with the Supreme Court's final decision on the appeal being final in accordance with P7, S1(4).

This majority opinion is issued by dreckly, Chief Justice, alongside Associate Justice Brokyy_, Associate Justice Inconclusive-, Associate Justice GreenArcher, and Associate Justice Pawtistic.