Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Farah Constructions v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, also known as Farah, is a decision of the High Court of Australia. [1] The case was influential in developing Australian legal doctrines relating to equity, property, unjust enrichment, and constructive trusts, [2] as well as the doctrine of precedent as it applies in Australia.
R v Symonds (The Queen v Symonds) was an 1847 New Zealand Supreme Court [a] case that incorporated the concept of aboriginal title into New Zealand law and upheld the government's pre-emptive right of purchase to Māori land deriving from the common law and expressed in the Treaty of Waitangi.
Protests against the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which extinguished claims to aboriginal title to the foreshore and seabeds in New Zealand. Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty to that land by another colonising state.
In 1987, the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General recognised the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General that restricting 16 and 17 year olds from voting was unjustified age discrimination under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Proposals to abolish appeals to the Privy Council in New Zealand were first put forward in the early 1980s. [82] The Privy Council's respect for local decisions was noted by Lord Brightman in 1985 in regard to the possible adoption of a New Zealand decision, in the case of Archer v. Cutler (1980), as a precedent, where he stated that: If Archer v.
The Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum is a business-led initiative designed to further develop Australia and New Zealand's bilateral relationship as well as their joint relations in the region. The ninth and most recent such convened on 9 April 2011. [134] [135]
In Kruger v Commonwealth, decided in 1997, also known as the Stolen Generation Case, the High Court of Australia rejected a challenge to the validity of legislation applying in the Northern Territory between 1918 and 1957 which authorised the removal of Aboriginal children from their families.
Re Panama, New Zealand, and Australian Royal Mail Co (1870) 5 Ch App 318 is generally accepted as the first decision under English law to recognise a floating charge. [1] [2] The reported decision is extremely short, and the judgment itself is only two pages. The word "floating charge" does not appear in it. [3]