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

CHAP. III] JUDICTAL APPEALS 1369 objection was raised in the Supreme Court of Victoria that there was no provision in the Commonwealth Act taking away the right of the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council, and they endorsed his view that, if the Federal Legislature had passed an Act providing that there should be no right of appeal from a State Court in the matter in question, the Act would have been ultra vires, and that it was equally ultra vires to accomplish the same result indirectly. Put more directly, the issue between the High Court and the Privy Council was, whether in the exercise of a new federal jurisdiction (for although the jurisdiction in a great part might have been exercised, and was before the Act of 1903 exercised, as state jurisdiction, it was made entirely federal by the Act of 1903) appeals were regulated by an Order in Council? which applied generally to all matters in the State Court, but which was prepared when there was no question of federal jurisdiction at all. The High Court of the Commonwealth, in the case of Baxter v. The Commissioners of Taxation, New South Wales? declined to follow the decision in Webb v. Outtrim. The majority of the Court decided that the High Court was by the Constitution the ultimate arbiter upon all questions as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and a state, unless it was of opinion that the question in any particular instance was one upon which it should follow the guidance of the Privy Council. But though they reconsidered the matter in view of the Privy Council’s decision, they were unable to accept the view of that Court. . They rested their decision on the ground that as the Constitution made the High Court supreme in questions of the constitutional rights of the states of the Com- monwealth, unless it chose to allow an appeal, the Privy Council should have considered itself bound, when a case ' For Victoria, June 9, 1860; Queensland, June 30, 1860; South Australia, June 9, 1860 ; Western Australia, October 11, 1861 ; New South Wales, November 13, 1850 ; Tasmania. March 4. 1831. 40 LR. 10R7.

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