Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Includes NSW Court of Appeal and NSW Court of Criminal Appeal NSW Reports : NSWR: 1960-1970 New South Wales Law Reports: State Reports NSW : SR NSW: 1901-1970: New South Wales Law Reports: 1901-1950: via AustLII: Law Reports (NSW) LR (NSW) 1856–1900: via AustLII: Weekly Notes (New South Wales) WN (NSW) 1884–1987: Neutral citation: NSWSC ...
AustLII was established in 1995. [1] [2] Founded as a joint program of the University of Technology Sydney and the University of New South Wales law schools, its initial funding was provided by the Australian Research Council. [3] Its public policy purpose is to improve access to justice through access to legal information. [4]
This template produces links to a variety of different legislation resources located on the [[AustLII]] site. Formatting is designed to be in compliance with the [[Australian Guide to Legal Citation]]. Template parameters [Edit template data] Parameter Description Type Status Jurisdiction 1 In all cases jurisdiction will be one of Cth (for federal legislation) or ACT, NSW, NT, Qld, SA, Tas ...
This template links to a variety of different case reports located on the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) website. You should look up the case you wish to cite on AustLII, then refer to the URL of the web page on which the case appears to fill in the information required by the template.
There have been discussions about a co-operative system of regulation to be implemented between the states, conferring jurisdiction on the federal commonwealth in a similar manner done in the Corporations Act 2001. Property legislation in all states is grounded upon the Torrens principle of registration of title. [1]
Prior to the Act, the succession to the throne of Australia, like all Commonwealth realms, was controlled by a system of male-preference primogeniture, [8] under which succession passed first to the monarch's or nearest dynast's legitimate sons (and to their legitimate issue) in order of birth, and subsequently to their daughters and their legitimate issue, again in order of birth, so that ...
The Court held, inter alia, that a State tribunal which is not a “court of a State” is unable to exercise judicial power to determine matters between residents of two States because the State law which purports to authorise the tribunal to do so is inconsistent with the conditional investment by s 39(2) of the Judiciary Act [7] of all such ...
In an important constitutional case (Sue v Hill (1999) 163 ALR 648), three justices of the High Court of Australia (the ultimate court of appeal) expressed the view that if the British Parliament were to alter the law of succession to the throne, such a change could not have any effect on the monarchy in Australia, because of the Australia Act ...