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

cHAP. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 883 which evidently held that though the jurisdiction conferred was federal, and the authority federal, the fact could make no difference to the terms of the Orders in Council granting the right to appeal on certain conditions. The view of the High Court was somewhat later voiced again by Mr. Deakin in 1910 in a dispatch to the Secretary of State! in which he suggested that the Orders in Council regulating appeals to the High Courts of the states should only deal with non- federal jurisdiction. The Colonial Office in a letter to the Privy Council Office pointed out that this would be contrary to the decision of the Privy Council in Webb v. Outlrim, and Orders in Council have already been issued for all the States which make no difference in the character of the jurisdiction to which the Orders apply. In another form the same question crops up in connexion with the problem of the provision in the Constitution which prevents the High Court being deprived by the Parlia- ment of its power to hear any case from which an appeal lay from a Supreme Court to the Queen in Council at the time of the passing of the Act of 1900. It was suggested in the judgement of the High Court in Hannah v. Dalgarno? that if the federal jurisdiction conferred by the Federal Parliament were a new jurisdiction, then an appeal would not have lain at the establishment of the Commonwealth, and therefore Parliament could limit the right of a hearing in such cases. The argument is apparently wrong, and in any case it is academic, for Parliament is not likely to diminish the appellate power of the High Court. The High Court has decided to follow the doctrine laid down by the Privy Council in certain cases and to refuse to exercise its power of hearing appeals in cases of election petitions, where the matter is clearly one in which the State Court intervenes as a substitute for the older method of allowing the House to try its own petitions, and where the asua) principles of appellate jurisdiction are out of place? t See Parl. Pap., Cd. 5273, pp. 39, 40. Of. Quick and Garran, op. cit., p. 755. $1C. LR. 1 at pp. 9, 10. 2 Holmes v. Angwin, (1906) 4 C. L. R. 297; see Théberge v. Landry, (1871) 2 App. Cas. 102 ; Valin v. Langlois, (1879) 5 App. Cas. 115; Kennedy vo

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