Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

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:: 1896935311

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-237672

Document type:: Volume

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

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 3

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XII Seiten, Seiten 1102-1670

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part VI. The judiciary

Collection:: Economics Books

[368 THE JUDICIARY [PART VI of its federal jurisdiction should be final and conclusive except in so far as an appeal might be brought to the High Court. The conflict between the Privy Council and the High Court which had been anticipated was not long delayed. In the income-tax cases Deakin v. Webb and Lyne v. Webb 1 the High Court decided that the salary of a federal officer was not liable to state income-tax, overruling a decision to the contrary of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The High Court also declined to give the necessary certificate to enable the matter to be carried to the Privy Council, though the Premiers of the Australian states were anxious that the matter should be taken there, and O’Connor J. had no hesitation in saying that, if it were found that by the current of authority in England it was likely that, should a case go to the Privy Council, some fundamental principle involved might be decided in a manner contrary to the true intent of the Constitution as the Court believed it to be, it would be their duty not to allow the case to go to the Privy Council, and thus to save this Constitution from a risk of what they would consider a misinterpretation of its fundamental principles. On the other hand, in the case of Webb v. Outirim ® the Privy Council held that a State Parliament could tax the salary of a federal officer. The case had come before the Supreme Court of Victoria? which had followed Deakin v. Webb, but which granted leave to appeal to the Privy Council under the Order in Council of June 9, 1860, despite the provisions of ss. 38 and 39 of the Judiciary Act, 1903. In reversing the judgement of the Supreme Court the Privy Council dealt with the objection which had been made as to the hearing of the appeal at all by the Privy Council. They accepted the view taken by Hodges J.* when the same + 1 C. L. R. 585, overruling sn re Income Tax Acts, 29 V. L. R. 748. In Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving,[1905] A. C. 369, the issue was avoided. * [1907] A. C. 81. So the Supreme Court of Victoria in Wollaston’s case, 28 V. L. R. 357. 3719051 V. L. R. 463. 4 Thid., at p. 467.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation