|
Intergovernmental Immunity (Australia)
In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity, as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws. Early doctrine The inaugural High Court Prior to 1920, the High Court of Australia tended to employ the US jurisprudence governing intergovernmental immunity, expressing it as an implied immunity of instrumentalities, where neither the Commonwealth nor State governments could be affected by the laws of the other. (2003) 31 Federal Law Review 507. This was first expressed in ''D'Emden v Pedder'', '' Deakin v Webb'', and the ''Railway Servants' case''. As Griffith CJ declared in the first case: In considering the respective powers of the Commonwealth and of the States it is essential to bear in mind that each is, w ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Crown Immunity
Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. A similar, stronger rule as regards foreign courts is named state immunity. History Sovereign immunity is the original forebear of state immunity based on the classical concept of sovereignty in the sense that a sovereign could not be subjected without his or her approval to the jurisdiction of another. In constitutional monarchies, the sovereign is the historical origin of the authority which creates the courts. Thus the courts had no power to compel the sovereign to be bound by them as they were created by the sovereign for the protection of his or her subjects. This rule was commonly expressed by the popular legal maxim ''rex non potest peccare'', meaning "the king can do no wrong". Forms There are two forms of sovereign immunity: * immunity from suit ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Melbourne Corporation V Commonwealth
''Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth'', also known as the Melbourne Corporation case or the State banking case,. is an important case in Australian constitutional law. It stands for the proposition that there are limits on the scope of express Commonwealth legislative powers which can be implied from the federal character of the Constitution A constitution is the aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organisation or other type of entity and commonly determine how that entity is to be governed. When these princi .... Principle The Melbourne Corporation principle is an implied limit on Commonwealth legislative power under the Constitution of Australia. The principle renders constitutionally invalid any Commonwealth law that is otherwise valid under a head of power in s51 or some other part of the Constitution if it: # Places a special burden on the states; # Significantly impairs, curtails or weake ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Australian Government Solicitor
The Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) is an Australian public servant and a federal government agency of the same name which provides legal advice to the federal government and its agencies. AGS was originally the Crown Solicitor's Office, which was established on 1 July 1903 on the appointment of Charles Powers as the first Commonwealth Crown Solicitor. With a major restructure of the Attorney-General's Department from 1983 to 1984, the Crown Solicitor's Office became the Office of the Australian Government Solicitor, with Crown Solicitor Tom Sherman appointed the first Australian Government Solicitor. Some functions of the Crown Solicitor's Office were transferred to other parts of the Attorney-General's Department. In 1999, the Australian Government Solicitor ceased being an office held by an individual, and instead became a government business enterprise, headed by a CEO, separate from the Attorney-General's Department. On 1 July 2015, AGS was consolidated within the Att ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Pirrie V McFarlane
''Pirrie v McFarlane'' is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia on Intergovernmental immunity between tiers of government in the Australian Constitution. Facts The defendant Thomas McFarlane was prosecuted under sec. 6 of the ''Motor Car Act 1915'' (Victoria) as he drove a motor-car upon a public highway without being licensed. McFarlane’s defence was that as a duly enlisted member of the Royal Australian Air Force and that on the occasion in question he was on duty driving a car belonging to the Air Force, under orders from his superior officer, was thus on Air Force business. The Police Magistrate dismissed the case, ruling that ''D'Emden v Pedder'' applied. The Supreme Court of Victoria declined to hear the case, as it involved a question as to the limits '' inter se'' of the constitutional powers of the State and the Commonwealth, leaving it to be considered by the High Court under s. 40A of the '' Judiciary Act 1903'', which at that time stated: I ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Interjurisdictional Immunity
In Canadian Constitutional law, interjurisdictional immunity is the legal doctrine that determines which legislation arising from one level of jurisdiction may be applicable to matters covered at another level. Interjurisdictional immunity is an exception to the pith and substance doctrine, as it stipulates that there is a core to each federal subject matter that cannot be reached by provincial laws. While a provincial law that imposes a tax on banks may be ruled ''intra vires'', as it is not within the protected core of banking, a provincial law that limits the rights of creditors to enforce their debts would strike at such a core and be ruled inapplicable. The paramountcy doctrine states that if two pieces of legislation meet, regulate the same activities, and conflict, the federal legislation is paramount, prevails and renders the provincial legislation ''inoperative''. In contrast, the ''interjurisdictional immunity doctrine'' is activated even if there is no meeting of legislat ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Intergovernmental Immunity (United States)
In United States Constitutional Law, intergovernmental immunity is a doctrine that prevents the federal government and individual state governments from intruding on each other's sovereignty. It is also referred to as a Supremacy Clause immunity or simply federal immunity from state law. The doctrine was established by the United States Supreme Court in ''McCulloch v. Maryland'' (1819), which ruled unanimously that states may not regulate property or operations of the federal government. In that case, Maryland state law subjected banks not chartered by the state to restrictions and taxes. In ''McCulloch's'' case, state law had attempted to impose these restrictions on the Second Bank of the United States. The Court found that if a state had the power to tax a federally incorporated institution, then the state effectively had the power to destroy the federal institution, thereby thwarting the intent and purpose of Congress. This would make the states superior to the federal government ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Re Australian Education Union
''Re Australian Education Union & Australian Nursing Federation; ex parte Victoria''A writ of prohibition is one of the prerogative writs. In this usage ex parte means 'on the application of' rather than its other use as a case heard in the absence of a party. The order to show cause is a rule nisi, and if prohibition is granted, the rule is made absolute. is a High Court of Australia constitutional law case that involves the scope of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine in Australian constitutional law. In the case, the High Court struck down a Commonwealth law on the grounds that it impaired the capacity of a state to function as an independent government, the first time that the Court has taken such action. Background Under a Commonwealth law, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission could refrain from hearing a dispute if it thought it could be handled in a state body. However, Victoria argued that the law was discriminatory because Victoria had abolished its sta ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Garfield Barwick
Sir Garfield Edward John Barwick, (22 June 190313 July 1997) was an Australian judge who was the seventh and longest serving Chief Justice of Australia, in office from 1964 to 1981. He had earlier been a Liberal Party politician, serving as a minister in the Menzies government from 1958 to 1964. Barwick was born in Sydney, and attended Fort Street High School before going on to study law at the University of Sydney. He was called to the bar in 1927 and became one of Australia's most prominent barristers, appearing in many high-profile cases and frequently before the High Court. He served terms as president of the NSW Bar Association and the Law Council of Australia. Barwick entered politics only at the age of 54, winning election to the House of Representatives at the 1958 Parramatta by-election. Prime Minister Robert Menzies made him Attorney-General by the end of the year, and in 1961 he was additionally made Minister for External Affairs. In 1964, Menzies nominated B ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Victoria V Commonwealth (1971)
{{Infobox court case , name=Victoria v Commonwealth , court=High Court of Australia , image=Coat of Arms of Australia.svg , date decided=14 May 1971 , full name= Victoria v The Commonwealth , citation(1971) 122 CLR 353, judges= Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer, Owen, Walsh and Gibbs JJ , prior actions=none , subsequent actions=none , opinions= (7:0) The imposition of payroll taxes on the state government as an employer is a valid exercise of the federal taxation power (per Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer, Owen, Walsh and Gibbs JJ) ''Victoria v Commonwealth'' (1971) 122 CLR 353, commonly referred to as the Payroll Tax Case, was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the Commonwealth's taxation power and the extent to which it can burden a state's structural integrity. Background The Commonwealth passed the ''Payroll Tax Act'', which imposed a 2.5% tax on all wages paid by an employer. It also applied to all state empl ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Austin V Commonwealth
''Austin v Commonwealth'',. is a High Court of Australia case that deals with issues of intergovernmental immunity and discrimination of states against Commonwealth power. Background Austin was a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales who was challenging a Commonwealth law that imposed a superannuation contributions surcharge on judges. The Commonwealth law was part of a wider scheme imposing a superannuation charge on higher-income earners, equalising the tax burden on judges vis-a-vis other high-income earners. The surcharge was not imposed on states directly as employers because it could have infringed section 114 of the constitution, which outlaws taxation of state property. If a person was a judge since before 1987, the charge was not imposed as the liability to pay the charge could have run to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The New South Wales government, in response, amended the charge system to lower the burden that would have to be paid. Decision Gaudr ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Henderson V Defence Housing Authority (1997)
''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 (con ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Commonwealth V Cigamatic Pty Ltd (In Liq)
A commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good. Historically, it has been synonymous with " republic". The noun "commonwealth", meaning "public welfare, general good or advantage", dates from the 15th century. Originally a phrase (the common-wealth or the common wealth – echoed in the modern synonym "public wealth"), it comes from the old meaning of " wealth", which is "well-being", and is itself a loose translation of the Latin res publica (republic). The term literally meant "common well-being". In the 17th century, the definition of "commonwealth" expanded from its original sense of " public welfare" or "commonweal" to mean "a state in which the supreme power is vested in the people; a republic or democratic state". The term evolved to become a title to a number of political entities. Three countries – Australia, the Bahamas, and Dominica – have the official title "Commonwealth", as do four U.S. states and two U.S. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
