Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter II. The commonwealth of Australia

Collection:: Economics Books

882 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV it was not necessary to determine the question as to how far such an appeal lay, but that there was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria, and that the appellants should go there first of all. The decision was obviously a wise one, else the High Court would cease to be able to perform its functions at all, being obstructed with all sorts of appeals before they have been sifted out and reduced to order by consideration by a Supreme Court. It will be seen that the Judiciary Act endeavours to treat the whole creation of federal jurisdiction as a new thing, and to remove it from the ordinary category of business before the State Court, by vesting it in that Court by a Common- wealth Act. There seems to be no legitimate ground of objection to these provisions: it is clear that before they were passed the State Courts could and did properly deal with cases involving federal questions, since the Constitution is by s. 5 of the covering Act binding upon them, and they might easily have to interpret its clauses. But after the Act the jurisdiction was not state jurisdiction, and if that were the view of Hodges J. in the case of Webb v. Outtrim? before the Supreme Court of Victoria it cannot be defended. There is certainly adequate authority in the Commonwealth Consti- tution for the Parliament to remove all federal jurisdiction from a Supreme Court and revest it with such jurisdiction as a Federal Court. But a different principle applies to the further doctrine laid down by the High Court? that in the exercise of such jurisdiction it could exclude a right of appeal save by special leave to the Privy Council. It was not contended on behalf of the High Court that the Parliament could create a subordinate Court and bar an appeal to the Privy Council by special leave, and it was argued that they had not attempted to do so, but had merely provided that there should be no appeal without special leave. But this view was clearly not that adopted by the Privy Council? * (1905) V. L. R. 463. Contrast Clark, op. cit., p. 160. * Hannah v. Dalgarno, 1 C. L. R. 1, at p. 10 ; Baater v. Commissioners of Taxation, N. 8. W., 4 C. L. R. 1087, at pp. 1138, 1139, Higgins J. dis- venting, at pp. 1162, 1163. * 11907]/A. C. 81. Cf. Harrison Moore, op. cit., p. 231.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation