|
List Of High Court Of Australia Cases
This article contains a list of notable cases decided by the High Court of Australia. Citation numbers for the decisions are as tracked bLawCite a citation tracker managed by the Free Access to Law Movement. Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas). List is . * References {{reflist See also * List of Privy Council cases *List of Court of Disputed Returns cases *List of Federal Court of Australia cases *List of Australian Supreme Court cases Lists of case law cover instances of case law, legal decisions in which the law was analyzed to resolve ambiguities for deciding current cases. They are organized alphabetically, by topic or by country. Alphabetical lists These lists are pan-j ... High Court * High Court of Australia Australian case law ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
High Court Of Australia
The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises Original jurisdiction, original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified within Constitution of Australia, Australia's Constitution. The High Court was established following passage of the ''Judiciary Act 1903''. It derives its authority from Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests it responsibility for the judiciary, judicial power of the Commonwealth. Important legal instruments pertaining to the High Court include the ''Judiciary Act 1903'' and the ''High Court of Australia Act 1979''.. Its bench is composed of seven justices, including a Chief Justice of Australia, Chief Justice, currently Susan Kiefel. Justices of the High Court are appointed by the Governor-General of Australia, Governor-General on the Advice (constitutional law), advice of the Prime Minister of Australia, Prime Minister and are appointed permanently until their mandatory retirement at age 70, unless they retire ea ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Minister For Immigration And Ethnic Affairs V Wu Shan Liang
{{Infobox court case, name=MIEA v Wu Shan Liang, court=High Court of Australia, image=Coat of Arms of Australia.svg, date decided=1996, full name=Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang, Huang Chang Jiang and Liu Jun Liang, citations=185 CLR 259, judges=Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh, Gummow, and Kirby JJ, opinions=Appeal allowed Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh, & Gummow JJ Kirby JMIEA v Wu Shan Liang is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It is an important case in Australian Administrative Law, particularly for the court's discussion of the 'proper role of a reviewing court' when examining decisions made by the executive. According to LawCite, Guo has been cited the fourth most times of any High Court decision.Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fox V Percy
''Fox v Percy'' is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case is important to appellate law in Australia. The court made notable observations about the role of; appellate courts, trial judge findings, and assessments of witness demeanor. ''Fox v Percy'' is the 15th most cited High Court case according to LawCite.Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=§ion=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=citedNote: data is as of September 2020 Facts Background facts The appellant Barbara Fox was injured in 1992. She was riding a horse alongside her friend Mr Murdoch, and came into collision with a Kombi Van driven by Megan Percy. Fox claimed damages against Percy in negligence. At trial, the crucial d ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
General Steel Industries Inc V Commissioner For Railways (NSW)
General Steel Industries v Commissioner for Railways is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case is notable in Australian jurisprudence for the principles that apply to summary terminations of proceedings. According to LawCite, it is the 14th most cited decision of the High Court.Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=§ion=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=citedNote: data is as of September 2020 Facts General Steel Industries commenced an action against the Commissioner for Railways, seeking injunctions. It sought to restrain the infringement of a patent granted under the Patents Act. The defendants requested that the court set aside the plaintiff's claim, on the grounds that the plain ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal V Bond
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond, also known as 'Bond', is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It is an important case in Australian Administrative Law, particularly for its writings about the meaning of a 'decision' and 'error of law'. As of September 2020, 'Bond' is the 13th most cited case of the High Court.Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=§ion=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=citedNote: data is as of September 2020 Background The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal had launched an investigation into Alan Bond and companies associated with him, for the purposes of determining whether he (or any of his companies) were a 'fit and proper person' to hold a broadcasting license.{{C ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Australian Constitutional Law
Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed. Background Constitutional law in the Commonwealth of Australia consists mostly of that body of doctrine which interprets the Commonwealth Constitution. The Constitution itself is embodied in clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which was passed by the British Parliament in 1900 after its text had been negotiated in Australian Constitutional Conventions in the 1890s and approved by the voters in each of the Australian colonies. The British government did, however, insist on one change to the text, to allow a greater range of appeals to the Privy Council in London. It came into force on 1 January 1901, at which time the Commonwealth of Australia came into being. The Constitution created a framework of government some of whose main features, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Plaintiff S157/2002 V Commonwealth
''Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth'', also known as 'S157', is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It is an important case in Australian Administrative Law, in particular for its holdings about Parliament's inability to restrict the availability of constitutional writs. As of September 2020, 'S157' is the 12th most cited case of the High Court.Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=§ion=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=citedNote: data is as of September 2020 Background The plaintiff,The effect of the is that courts cannot name plaintiffs seeking protection visas in order to reduce the potential that the publication the applicants name may create further protection claims for people in ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Harry Gibbs
Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs, (7 February 191725 June 2005) was Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1981 to 1987 after serving as a member of the High Court between 1970 and 1981. He was known as one of Australia's leading federalist judges although he presided over the High Court when decisions such as ''Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen'' in 1982 and ''Commonwealth v Tasmania'' expanded the powers of the Commonwealth at the expense of the states. Gibbs dissented from the majority verdict in both cases. On 3 August 2012, the Supreme Court of Queensland Library opened the Sir Harry Gibbs Legal Heritage Centre. It is the only legal heritage museum of its kind in Queensland and features a permanent exhibition dedicated to the life and legacy of Sir Harry Gibbs. Early career (1917–1970) Harry Talbot Gibbs was educated at the Ipswich Grammar School and later at Emmanuel College at the University of Queensland, where he was President of the University of Queensland Union. He g ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Minister For Aboriginal Affairs V Peko-Wallsend Ltd
''Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd'' also known as 'Peko', is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case is notable for its holdings relating to Australian Administrative Law; primarily in regards to relevant and irrelevant considerations, and constructive knowledge. As of September 2020, 'Peko' is the 11th most cited case of the High Court.Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=§ion=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=citedNote: data is as of September 2020 Facts The Alligator Rivers region in the Northern Territory was the subject of Aboriginal land claims and was also being investigated for uranium deposits by Peko-Wallsend. The Aboriginal land claim was investigated ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Jones V Dunkel
Jones v Dunkel is a decision of the High Court of Australia, concerning inferences that may be drawn when a party fails to give evidence. The case is notable for having originated 'the rule in ''Jones v Dunkel'''; an important rule in Australian civil procedure. (2005) 68 ''Precedent Australian Lawyers Alliance'' 41 – via Austlii. ''Jones v Dunkel'' is the tenth most cited decision of the High Court . Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas). Facts The husband of the plaintiff, Jones, had been killed in a traffic accident on the Hume Highway. His truck had been found crashed on the side of the road, with the front of his cabin crushed in on the off-side. Found nearby that wreck was another truck, which had been driven by Hegedus, an employee of the Defendant Dunkel. Hegedus was not killed but was hurt. Hegedus' truck was also badly damaged. Hegedus had given a written statemen ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Applicant S V MIMA
{{Infobox court case, name=Applicant S v MIMA, court= High Court of Australia, image=Coat of Arms of Australia.svg, date decided=27 May 2004, full name=Applicant S v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affaircitations=217 CLR 387, judges=Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, and Callinan JJ, opinions=Appeal allowed ''The tribunal failed to consider whether young able-bodied men comprised a social group that could be distinguished from the rest of Afghan society'' Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby J concurring McHugh J dissenting Callinan J ''Applicant S v MIMA'' is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case is an important decision in Australian Asylum in Australia#Laws governing the status of asylum seekers, refugee law. It is particularly known for its holdings about the meaning of 'particular social group' under the Refugee Convention, and for its holdings regarding when a law of general application may be considered to give rise to discriminatory treatment. Acco ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Owen Dixon
Sir Owen Dixon (28 April 1886 – 7 July 1972) was an Australian judge and diplomat who served as the sixth Chief Justice of Australia. A judge of the High Court for thirty-five years, Dixon was one of the leading jurists in the English-speaking worldGraham Perkin â€Its Most Eminent Symbol Hidden by The Law (published in The Age on 23 September 1959) and is widely regarded as Australia's greatest-ever jurist. Education Dixon was born in Hawthorn in suburban Melbourne in 1886. His father, JW Dixon, was a barrister and subsequently a solicitor. He attended Hawthorn College and later the University of Melbourne, graduating with an Arts degree in 1907. During this time, he developed his lifelong love of the classics from his classical philology professor, Thomas George Tucker. He was also influenced by professor of law, William Harrison Moore. His B.A. became an M.A., as was the custom then, a year later upon the payment of a small fee. He then studied law at Melbourne Law Sc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
