O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd (No 2)

Last updated

O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd (No 2)
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided13 October 1956
Citation(s) [1956] HCA 9, (1956) 94  CLR  367
Case history
Prior action(s) O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd (1954) 92 CLR 565
Subsequent action(s)O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd [1956] UKPC 24, [1957]  AC  1;
[1956] UKPCHCA 4, (1956) 95  CLR  177, Privy Council (on appeal fromAustralia)
Case opinions
(7:0) The Court rejected an application to appeal to the Privy Council from the previous case.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Williams, Webb, Fullagar, Kitto and Taylor JJ

O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd (No 2), [1] was a High Court of Australia case, in which a certificate, under s 74 of the Australian Constitution, was sought for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the previous decision of O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd . [2]

In the preceding case, it was held that the Commonwealth's extensive regulations regarding premises used for the slaughtering of livestock for export were valid under s 51(i) of the Constitution. In June 1955 the Privy Council gave special leave to appeal except to the extent they required a certificate of appeal under section 74. O'Sullivan applied to the High Court for a certificate of appeal.

Dixon CJ, Williams, Webb and Fullagar JJ wrote a joint judgment refusing a certificate of appeal stating that the policy of section 74 was to confine the decision of essentially federal questions to the High Court. McTiernan, Kitto and Taylor JJ each delivered concurring judgments.

The Privy Council took a narrower view of section 74 than the High Court, holding that the question of whether laws were inconsistent involved the application of section 109 of the Constitution and did not involve a question in relation to the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and the States. The Privy Council dismissed the appeal, approving the earlier decision of the statutory majority of the High Court, [3] particularly the judgment of Fullager J. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Australia</span> Highest court in Australia

The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified within Australia's Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australia Act 1986</span> Legislation by the UK and Australian Parliaments

The Australia Act 1986 is the short title of each of a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, the other an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, because of uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament alone had the ultimate authority to do so. They were enacted using legislative powers conferred by enabling Acts passed by the parliaments of every Australian state. The Acts came into effect simultaneously, on 3 March 1986.

Sir Owen Dixon was an Australian judge and diplomat who served as the sixth Chief Justice of Australia. A judge of the High Court for thirty-five years, Dixon was one of the leading jurists in the English-speaking world and is widely regarded as Australia's greatest-ever jurist.

<i>Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation.

<i>R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers Society of Australia</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia, known as the Boilermakers' Case, was a 1956 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to punish the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, a union which had disobeyed the orders of that court in relation to an industrial dispute between boilermakers and their employer body, the Metal Trades Employers' Association.

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

In Australian constitutional law, Chapter III Courts are courts of law which are a part of the Australian federal judiciary and thus are able to discharge Commonwealth judicial power. They are so named because the prescribed features of these courts are contained in Chapter III of the Australian Constitution.

<i>OSullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd, was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the trade and commerce power, under s 51(i) of the Australian Constitution, and inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws, under section 109 of the Constitution.

<i>Swift Australian Co (Pty) Ltd v Boyd Parkinson</i>

Swift Australian Co (Pty) Ltd v Boyd Parkinson, was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the trade and commerce power in section 51(i) of the Constitution.

Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales, was a Privy Council decision that affirmed the High Court of Australia's decision in Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth, promoting the theory of "individual rights" to ensure freedom of interstate trade and commerce. The case dealt primarily with Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia.

<i>Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying customs or excise duties. Although some of the judges used the now-discredited criterion of liability approach, this case remains authority for cases that are factually similar to it.

The persona designata doctrine is a doctrine in law, particularly in Canadian and Australian constitutional law which states that, although it is generally impermissible for a federal judge to exercise non-judicial power, it is permissible for a judge to do so if the power has been conferred on the judge personally, as opposed to powers having been conferred on the court. The doctrine in the more general sense has been recognised throughout the common law countries. Persona designata, according to Black's Law Dictionary, means "A person considered as an individual rather than as a member of a class"; thus it may be a person specifically named or identified in a lawsuit, as opposed to the one belonging to an identified category or group. While it has its origin in Montesquieu's doctrine of the separation of powers, it can be traced back as far as Aristotle's Politics.

<i>Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd</i> (No 2) Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd , was a decision of the High Court of Australia on 17 April 1985 concerning section 74 of the Constitution of Australia. The Court denied an application by the Attorney-General of Queensland seeking a certificate that would permit the Privy Council to hear an appeal from the High Court's decision in Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd .

<i>Australian National Airways Pty Ltd v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian National Airways Pty Ltd v Commonwealth – most commonly known as Australian National Airways Pty Ltd v Commonwealth and also referred to as The Airlines Case or the ANA Case – was a High Court of Australia decision. The case dealt with limits of the powers of the Australian Federal Government under sections 51 and 92 of the Australian Constitution. The outcome of the case was that the Federal Government could found a federally owned airline, but it could not hinder private sector competition with that airline.

Section 99 of the Constitution of Australia, is one of several important non-discrimination provisions that govern actions of the Commonwealth and the various States.

<i>Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney-General</i> (Cth) Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth), is the only case in which the High Court issued a certificate under section 74 of the Constitution to permit an appeal to the Privy Council on a constitutional question. The Privy Council did not answer the question asked by the High Court, and the court never issued another certificate of appeal.

<i>Deakin v Webb</i>

Deakin v Webb was one of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The High Court of Australia overruled a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, holding that the States could not tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. This resulted in conflict with the Privy Council that was ultimately resolved by the passage of Commonwealth law in 1907 to permit the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case.

<i>Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation</i> (NSW) Australian tax case

Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW), and Flint v Webb, were the last of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer which had resulted in conflict between the High Court and the Privy Council. The two cases were heard together, however two separate judgments were issued with Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW) addressing the substantive issues, and Flint v Webb addressing the applications for a certificate to appeal to the Privy Council. The judgement of Griffith CJ in Flint v Webb suggested two ways in which that conflict could be resolved. Both suggestions were adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament by legislation that permitted the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer, and gave the High Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction on such constitutional questions. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' case.

Judicial independence is regarded as one of the foundation values of the Australian legal system, such that the High Court held in 2004 that a court capable of exercising federal judicial power must be, and must appear to be, an independent and impartial tribunal. Former Chief Justice Gerard Brennan described judicial independence as existing "to serve and protect not the governors but the governed", albeit one that "rests on the calibre and the character of the judges themselves". Despite general agreement as to its importance and common acceptance of some elements, there is no agreement as to each of the elements of judicial independence.

References

  1. O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd (No.2) [1956] HCA 9 , (1956) 94 CLR 367(2 March 1956), High Court
  2. O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd [1954] HCA 29 , (1954) 92 CLR 565(17 December 1954), High Court.
  3. As this was a stated case and not an appeal, the decision of the Chief Justice prevailed: Judiciary Act 1903 s23 as amended by the Judiciary Act 1912.
  4. O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd [1956] UKPC 24 , [1957] AC 1; [1956] UKPCHCA 4 , (1956) 95 CLR 177(4 July 1956), Privy Council (on appeal fromAustralia).