|
Separation Of Powers In Australia
The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "''responsible government''" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.. The first three chapters of the Australian Constitu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Kirk V Industrial Court Of NSW
Kirk is a Scottish and former Northern English word meaning "church". It is often used specifically of the Church of Scotland. Many place names and personal names are also derived from it. Basic meaning and etymology As a common noun, ''kirk'' (meaning 'church') is found in Scots, Scottish English, Ulster-Scots and some English dialects, attested as a noun from the 14th century onwards, but as an element in placenames much earlier. Both words, ''kirk'' and ''church'', derive from the Koine Greek κυριακόν (δωμα) (kyriakon (dōma)) meaning ''Lord's (house)'', which was borrowed into the Germanic languages in late antiquity, possibly in the course of the Gothic missions. (Only a connection with the idiosyncrasies of Gothic explains how a Greek neuter noun became a Germanic feminine). Whereas ''church'' displays Old English palatalisation, ''kirk'' is a loanword from Old Norse and thus retains the original mainland Germanic consonants. Compare cognates: Icelandi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Persona Designata
The ''persona designata'' doctrine is a doctrine in law, particularly in Canadian and Australian constitutional law which states that, although it is generally impermissible for a federal judge to exercise non-judicial power, it is permissible for a judge to do so if the power has been conferred on the judge personally, as opposed to powers having been conferred on the court. The doctrine in the more general sense has been recognised throughout the common law countries (including the United States). ''Persona designata'', according to '' Black's Law Dictionary'', means "A person considered as an individual rather than as a member of a class"; thus it may be a person specifically named or identified in a lawsuit, as opposed to the one belonging to an identified category or group. While it has its origin in Montesquieu's doctrine of the separation of powers, it can be traced back as far as Aristotle's ''Politics''. In Australia the doctrine is considered to be an exception to the B ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd V Wednesbury Corp
''Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation'' 9481 KB 223 is an English law case that sets out the standard of unreasonableness of public-body decisions that would make them liable to be quashed on judicial review, known as ''Wednesbury'' unreasonableness. The court gave three conditions on which it would intervene to correct a bad administrative decision, including on grounds of its unreasonableness in the special sense later articulated in ''Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service'' by Lord Diplock: Facts In 1947 Associated Provincial Picture Houses was granted a licence by the Wednesbury Corporation in Staffordshire to operate a cinema on condition that no children under 15, whether accompanied by an adult or not, were admitted on Sundays. Under the Cinematograph Act 1909, cinemas could be open from Mondays to Saturdays but not on Sundays, and under a Regulation, the commanding officer of military forces stationed in a neigh ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Chapter III Court
In Australian constitutional law, Chapter III Courts are courts of law which are a part of the Australian federal judiciary and thus are able to discharge Commonwealth judicial power. They are so named because the prescribed features of these courts are contained in Chapter III of the Australian Constitution. Separation of powers in Australia The doctrine of separation of powers refers to a system of government whereby three aspects of government power legislative power, executive power, and judicial powerare vested in separate institutions. This doctrine holds that abuse of power can be avoided by each arm of government acting as a check on another. In Australia, this separation is implied in the structure of the Constitution. Chapter I outlines legislative powerthe making, altering or repealing of laws; Chapter II outlines executive powerthe general and detailed carrying on of governmental functions; Chapter III outlines judicial powerthe interpretation of law, and adjudi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Drake V Minister For Immigration & Ethnic Affairs
''Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs'',''Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs''(1979) 46 FLR 409. (3 May 1979) Federal Court (Full Court). was a 1979 decision of the Federal Court of Australia dealing with drugs, deportation and judicial roles. Background Facts Drake was a United States citizen, but had lived in Australia for 10 years. He was convicted of possessing cannabis and was fined $400 and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to be released after 3 months on a good behaviour bond. At the time section 12 of the Migration Act 1958, provided that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs could order the deportation of a non-citizen who was sentenced to imprisonment for one year or longer. The Minister signed a deportation order. Drake appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal The AAT was established in 1975, to conduct an independent merits review of administrative decisions made under ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Waterside Workers' Federation Of Australia V J W Alexander Ltd
''Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd'' is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1918 regarding judicial power of the Commonwealth which established that Chapter III of the Constitution required judges to be appointed for life to a specific court, subject only to the removal provisions in the constitution. The majority of the High Court held that because the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration was appointed for seven years and not life as required by s 72 of the Constitution, the Arbitration Court could not exercise judicial powers of the Commonwealth. Background The Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia applied to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration for a penalty to be imposed on J W Alexander Ltd for the breach of an award. H. B. Higgins was appointed for life as a judge of the High Court, however his appointment as President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Ar ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Kirby; Ex Parte Boilermakers' Society Of Australia
''R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia'',. known as the ''Boilermakers' Case'', was a 1956 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to punish the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, a union which had disobeyed the orders of that court in relation to an industrial dispute between boilermakers and their employer body, the Metal Trades Employers' Association. The High Court held that the judicial power of the Commonwealth could not be vested in a tribunal that also exercised non-judicial functions. It is a major case dealing with the separation of powers in Australian law. Background Separation of Powers The High Court had consistently held that the judicial power of the Commonwealth could not be exercised by any body except a court established under Chapter III of the Constitution or a state court invested with federal jurisdiction. This was because the separation of judic ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
New South Wales V Commonwealth (1915)
''New South Wales v Commonwealth'', commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.Commonwealth of Australia Constitutionsection 92./ref> Background In 1914 there were rising prices in Australia for various commodities, including wheat, caused by a drought in Australia from 1911 to 1916 and the outbreak of World War I in July 1914. The initial response of the Parliament of NSW was to fix the price of wheat at 4s 2d (4 shillings and 2 pence) per bushel while the then market price was 5 p higher at 4s 7d. Farmers and merchants refused to sell their wheat at that price and resulted in the Government seizure of wheat stored at railway yards. By December 1914 the market price in Victoria had risen to 5s 6d. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sykes V Cleary
''Sykes v Cleary''.The Case Stated (by Dawson J), and then the individual judgments, are separately paragraph-numbered. was a significant decision of the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns on 25 November 1992. The case was a leading decision on Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia, dealing with both what constitutes an office of profit under the Crown and allegiance to a foreign power. The majority held that a teacher employed by the State of Victoria held an "office of profit under the Crown" within the meaning of s 44(iv) and so was "incapable of being chosen". A person who held dual citizenship was incapable of being chosen unless they had taken all reasonable steps to renounce the other citizenship. Background The former Labor Party Prime Minister Bob Hawke had resigned as the member for Wills in 1992. Independent candidate Phil Cleary was declared elected in the 1992 by-election; he had the highest first-preference vote, and an a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
