Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
the court decided to adopt the High Court ruling in Mutual Life & Citizens' Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Evatt (1968) over the Privy Council decision which overruled the High Court. This re-affirmed the broad approach taken to statements of negligent misrepresentation. Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen: 1982 153 CLR 168 Gibbs
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 (Aon v ANU) is a decision by the High Court of Australia (High Court) that redefined the principles for requests made to a court during a case to resolve procedural or temporary issues for changing the formal written documents outlining the claims or defence of each party in a case, known as pleadings.
The High Court exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction.. Sir Owen Dixon said on his swearing in as Chief Justice of Australia in 1952: [8]. The High Court's jurisdiction is divided in its exercise between constitutional and federal cases which loom so largely in the public eye, and the great body of litigation between man and man, or even man and government, which has nothing to do ...
Adelaide Co of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc v Commonwealth [1] was a court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 14 June 1943.. In January 1941, acting pursuant to the National Security (Subversive Organisations) Regulations 1940, [2] the Government of Australia declared Jehovah's Witnesses to be "prejudicial to the defence of the Commonwealth" and to the "efficient prosecution of the war".
Trade and commerce power in the Australian Constitution cases (1 C, 11 P) Pages in category "High Court of Australia cases" The following 200 pages are in this category, out of approximately 289 total.
Palmer v Western Australia was a case heard by the High Court of Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic, which held that the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions and the authorising legislation, the Emergency Management Act 2005, were not impermissibly infringing section 92 of the Constitution of Australia.
The Full Court of the High Court hearing the case comprised Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ. Hearings of substantial matters began on 4 May 2006, and concluded on 11 May. The outcome of the challenge was the High Court decision of New South Wales & Ors v Commonwealth, delivered on 14 November 2006. [1]
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (commonly known as the Mabo case or simply Mabo) is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that recognised the existence of Native Title in Australia. [1] It was brought by Eddie Mabo and others against the State of Queensland, and decided on 3 June 1992.