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

cap. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 885 Wales, had held that the plaintiff had no title to occupy the land in respect of which an action was brought in the previous June. The Legislature of New South Wales in June 1909 subsequently passed an Act declaring in effect that the plaintiff should be deemed to have a title to occupy the lands in question at that date. In February 1910 a motion was made in the Court of New South Wales for decree in the suit, and the Chief Judge in Equity delivered judgement on the construction of the Act, holding that it was retrospective and bound the lands, but the further point was taken by counsel for the defendant that the Act was invalid, as being in conflict with the decision of the High Court in the case of Minister for Lands (N. 8. W.) v. Bank of New South Wales,! in which it was held by the High Court that the plaintiff had no title to the lands in question, and thus arose a question of the limits inter se of the power of the Commonwealth and the states within the meaning of s. 40 (a) of the Judiciary Act, 1903. The Chief Judge then held that the question of the validity of the Act must be referred to the High Court, and the suit was removed accordingly. It was argued for the defendant that the state legislation was in fact a direct interference with the judicial functions of the High Court. The judgement of the High Court gave the defendant a right which the Legislature could not retrospectively take away. The frigh Court unanimously agreed that no question was raised of the powers inter se of the Commonwealth and the states. The decision of the High Court remained untouched. It was now the law, declared by a subsequent statute, that the plaintiff then acquired a retrospective title to the land. The propriety of his doing so was a question entirely between the Legislature and the constituencies, and no question of she interpretation of the Constitution arose. The High Court has decided that the Supreme Courts of the states, in the execution of the judgements of the High Court reversing their decisions, are not able to allow either a stay? or an adjournment, though appeals to the Privy Council t9 C. L. R. 322. 3 Peacock v. Osborne, (1907) 4 C. L. R. 1564. ' Bayne v. Blake, (1908) 5 C. L. R. 497.

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