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

1370 THE JUDICIARY [PART V1 came to it direct from a State Court, to accept the judgement of the High Court. Higgins J.! disagreed with the other members of the Court, pointing out that the King in Council was on a higher platform than the High Court, although the High Court might prevent the litigant from ascending the plat- form, and he quoted the fact that though an appeal never lay to the House of Lords from the Court of Crown Cases Reserved, nevertheless that Court always followed the judgements of the House of Lords. The High Court also held that in the exercise of federal jurisdiction an appeal lay to the Privy Council only by special leave, and not as of right under the Order in Council. They held that, in the case of a new juris- diction created by the Act of 1903, only such appeal as was allowed in the Act, and the prerogative right could exist. They also refused permission to appeal from their decision on the ground that it would be a breach of their duty to pass on a case of the type contemplated in s. 74 of the Constitution unless some exceptional cause was shown. The attempt to obtain special leave from the Privy Council to appeal from this decision in the case of The Commissioners of Taxation, New South Wales, v. Baxter 2 was declined. The ground for the refusal to consider this case was, in the main, that an Act, No. 7 of 1907, of the Commonwealth had been passed expressly authorizing the State Parliaments to tax the salaries of Commonwealth officers, and that therefore the dispute could not reasonably arise again. It was clear that the Commonwealth Act could hardly have been valid, had the decision of the High Court been correct that it was a fundamental principle of the Constitution that such taxation should not be allowed? but on the view of the Judicial Committee the Act was merely a nullity, and in any case it was clear that the question did not require decision. But not only was the immediate cause of dispute removed by the action of the Commonwealth Parliament, but steps '4C. L. R., at pp. 1162, 1163. 2 [1908] A. C. 214, * So per Higgins J. in Flint v. Webb, 4 C. L. R. 1178, at p. 1194. Contra, per Griffiths C.J., at p. 1187. Cf. Parliamentary Debates, 1907, pp. 3860 seq.

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