[3] Its authority derives from chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests it (and other courts the Parliament creates) with the judicial power of the Commonwealth.

Justices of the High Court are appointed by the governor-general on the formal advice of the attorney-general following the approval of the prime minister and Cabinet.

[Note 2] The High Court's appellate jurisdiction is limited by the Judiciary Act, which requires special leave to be granted before the hearing of an appeal.

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 Parker v The Queen (1964), Chief Justice Sir Owen Dixon led a unanimous judgment rejecting the authority of the House of Lords decision in 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.

[23] Sir Garfield Barwick insisted on an amendment to Privy Council procedure to allow dissent;[24] however, he exercised that capacity only once.

[Note 5] It was empowered to hear appeals from the Supreme Court of Nauru in both criminal and civil cases, but not constitutional matters.

[45] 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this appellate jurisdiction sat awkwardly with the High Court's other responsibilities, and ought be renegotiated or repealed.

[45] Justice Minister David Adeang said that an additional reason for cutting ties was the cost of appeals to the High Court.

[52] Following Earl Grey's 1846 proposal to federate the colonies, an 1849 report from the Privy Council suggested a national court be created.

[Note 7][54] However, the proposed court allowed for appeals to the Privy Council, which was disliked by some of the colonies, and the bill was abandoned.

[55] Others argued that Australian judges were of a poorer quality than those of the English, and than the inevitable divergence in law that would occur without the oversight of the Privy Council; would put the legal system at risk.

[55] Inglis Clark took the view that the possibility of divergence was a good thing, for the law could adapt appropriately to Australian circumstances.

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.

Some members of the first Parliament, including Sir John Quick, then one of the leading legal experts in Australia, opposed legislation to set up the court.

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.

[56] Deakin eventually negotiated amendments with the opposition, reducing the number of judges from five to three, and eliminating financial benefits such as pensions.

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.

[63] Sir Garfield Barwick, who was 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 Deakin v Webb (1904)[66] It criticised the Victorian Supreme Court for following a Privy Council decision about the Constitution of Canada instead of its own authority.

Another significant decision was Roche v Kronheimer, in which the court relied upon the defence power to uphold federal legislation seeking to implement Australia's obligations under the Treaty of Versailles.

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.

[87] 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.

[96] 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.

Three High Court justices served as associates prior to their elevation to the bench: Aickin to Dixon, Gageler to Mason, and Edelman to Toohey.

[123] 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.

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 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).