R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia

Last updated

R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameThe Queen v Kirby, Dunphy, Ashburner and Metal Trades Employers Association; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia
Decided2 March 1956
Citation(s) [1956] HCA 10, (1956) 94 CLR 254 Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif
Case history
Prior action(s)
  • Metal Trades Employers Association v Boilermakers Society of Australia (1955) 81 CAR 112 (Orders)
  • Metal Trades Employers Association v Boilermakers Society of Australia (1955) 81 CAR 231 (contempt of court)
Case opinions
Majority Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar & Kitto JJ
Dissent Williams, Webb & Taylor JJ
Attorney-General (Cth) v The Queen
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Crown & Garter).svg
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Decided19 March 1957
Citation(s) [1957] UKPC 4, [1957]  AC  288;
[1957] UKPCHCA 1, (1957) 95  CLR  529
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Viscount Kilmuir LC, Viscount Simonds, Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord Tucker, Lord Cohen, Lord Keith of Avonholm and Lord Somervell of Harrow.

R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia, [1] 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. [2]

Contents

The High Court held that the judicial power of the Commonwealth could not be vested in a tribunal that also exercised non-judicial functions. It is a major case dealing with the separation of powers in Australian law.

Background

Separation of powers

The High Court had consistently held that the judicial power of the Commonwealth could not be exercised by any body except a court established under Chapter III of the Constitution or a state court invested with federal jurisdiction. This was because the separation of judicial and other powers was a fundamental principle of the Constitution. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

The High Court had held that the separation of powers did not prevent a federal court or federal judge from discharging other functions. [9] [10] [11] Latham CJ stated that:

Thus, in my opinion, it is not possible to rely upon any doctrine of absolute separation of powers for the purpose of establishing a universal proposition that no court or person who discharges Federal judicial functions can lawfully discharge any other function which has been entrusted to him by statute. This proposition, however, does not involve the further proposition that any powers or duties, of any description whatsoever, may be conferred or imposed upon Federal courts or Federal judges. If a power or duty were in its nature such as to be inconsistent with the co-existence of judicial power, it might well be held that a statutory provision purporting to confer or impose such a power or duty could not stand with the creation of the judicial tribunal or the appointment of a person to act as a member of it. [9] : p 566–7 

The power of the Arbitration Court was contained in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 which relevantly provided that:

29. The Court shall have power-

(b) to order compliance with an order or award proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been broken or not observed

(c) by order, to enjoin an organization or person from committing or continuing a contravention of this Act or a breach or non-observance of an order or award;

29A (1) The Court has the same power to punish contempts of its power and authority, whether in relation to its judicial powers and functions or otherwise, as is possessed by the High Court in respect of contempts of the High Court. [12]

Facts

The Metal Trades Award was made by a conciliation commissioner on 16 January 1952 and included a prohibition on industrial action as follows:

(ba) (i) No organization party to this award shall in any way, whether directly or indirectly be a party to or concerned in any ban, limitation or restriction upon the performance of work in accordance with this award.
(ii) An organization shall be deemed to commit a new and separate breach of the above sub-clause on each and every day in which it is directly or indirectly a party to such ban, limitation or restriction. [13]

Members of the Federated Ironworkers Association (FIA) at the Mort's Dock & Engineering Company's shipyard in Balmain, Sydney, including FIA delegate Nick Origlass, went on strike from 16 February 1955 seeking an increase in pay of A£1 per week. Other workers were supporting the strikers by paying a levy of 8 shillings per week. [14] The strike was portrayed by the Communist Party of Australia [15] as a contest between the union members and the National Secretary of the FIA, Laurie Short, who was a grouper, part of the informal Industrial Groups set up by the Labor Party within trade unions to counter the perceived threat of Communist Party influence. [16]

The Arbitration Court made orders against the FIA requiring it to comply with the Metal Trades Award. [17] The strike continued and on 20 May 1955 the FIA was found to be in contempt of court despite genuine attempts to have the employees return to work. No fine was imposed; however, the FIA had to pay legal costs of 160 guineas. [18]

Prior actions

The cargo ship MV Poul Carl Poul Carl.tif
The cargo ship MV Poul Carl

Members of the Boilermakers' Society of Australia were among those supporting the strikers by paying the levy of 8 shillings per week. They also put a ban on repair work on the cargo ship Poul Carl, [14] and the Metal Trades Employers Association sought an order requiring the Boilermakers to comply with the Metal Trades Award. On 21 May 1955 the Arbitration Court, Kirby, Dunphy and Ashburner JJ, held that it had no alternative but to make the orders. [19] The Boilermakers were subsequently found to be in contempt of court by permitting its members to contribute "strike pay", thereby actively subsidising the strike and prolonging it. The Boilermakers were fined A£500 and ordered to pay the employers' legal costs. [20]

The High Court application

The Boilermakers applied to the High Court for a writ of prohibition compelling Kirby, Dunphy and Ashburner and the Metal Trades Employers Association, to appear before the High Court to show cause why they should not be prohibited from further proceeding on orders. [21] The Boilermakers challenged the orders on the grounds that sections of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act were invalid in that the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration was given non-judicial powers (administrative, arbitral, executive and legislative powers) as well as judicial powers and the separation of powers in Chapter III of the Constitution meant that the same body could not exercise judicial and non-judicial powers. Eggleston QC appeared for the Boilermakers. Menzies QC appeared for the Arbitration Court and the Attorney-General. Macfarlan QC appeared for the Metal Trades Employers Association.

Judgment of the High Court

The High Court held that the judicial power of the Commonwealth could not be vested in a tribunal that also exercised non-judicial functions. It is a major case dealing with the separation of powers in Australian law.

Grant of both judicial and non-judicial powers

Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar and Kitto JJ held that it was:

impossible to escape the conviction that Chap. III does not allow the exercise of a jurisdiction which of its very nature belongs to the judicial power of the Commonwealth by a body established for purposes foreign to the judicial power, notwithstanding that it is organized as a court and in a manner which might otherwise satisfy ss. 71 and 72, and that Chap. III does not allow a combination with judicial power of functions which are not ancillary or incidental to its exercise but are foreign to it. [1] : p 296 

There were three key elements to the majority decision

  1. The constitution embodied the separation of judicial power from legislative and executive power;
  2. Chapter III & matters incidental thereto were the sole source of power for a federal court or judge; and
  3. The arbitration power was foreign to the judicial power. [22]

Each of the dissenting judges took a slightly different approach. Williams J agreed that only a court could exercise judicial power, but held that there was no express prohibition on a court exercising non-judicial powers, rejecting an "implication in the Constitution arising from the vague concept of the separation of powers". [1] : p 306  Webb J held that the Constitution should be interpreted liberally and the previous decisions of the High Court should be followed. Taylor J saw difficulties in defining or identifying judicial functions, including the overlapping powers or functions that could not be clearly defined as exclusively legislative, executive or judicial. [22]

Is it the grant of judicial or of non-judicial powers which fails

The majority, Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar and Kitto JJ, held simply that the Arbitration Court was "a tribunal established and equipped primarily and predominantly for the work of industrial conciliation and arbitration" and thus held it was the attachment of powers of judicial enforcement that were invalid. [1] : p 286 

Williams J held that if the combination of powers was not permissible, it would be the arbitral functions that would be invalid. [1] : pp 305–6  Webb J took a different approach, holding that while judicial power could only be exercised by judges, the arbitral functions could be exercised by anyone, including by individuals who happened to be judges, referred to as persona designata . [1] : pp 305–6  Taylor J did not address this issue.

Privy Council

On 1 June 1956 the Attorney General obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council, [23] and was represented by the Solicitor-General, Bailey QC . The Boilermakers filed submissions by Eggleston QC , [24] however they did not appear at the hearing. [25]

The advice of the Privy Council was delivered by Viscount Simonds. [27] The Privy Council largely followed the reasoning of the majority of the High Court. [28]

The question in whatever for it is stated is whether and how far judicial and non-judicial power can be united in the same body. Their Lordships do not doubt that the decision of the High Court is right and that there is nothing in Chap. III, to which alone recourse can be had, which justifies such a union. [25] : p 539 

The Privy Council concluded that "The true criterion is not what powers are expressly or by implication excluded from the scope of Chapter III but what powers are expressly or by implication included in it". [25] : p 544 

Aftermath

The significance of the case was that it restricted the use of judicial power only to Chapter III courts (under the Australian Constitution), as well as establishing that these courts could exercise no other power. In this way, it clarified the separation of powers doctrine in Australia.

The decision led to the abolition of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration and the creation of two new Australian industrial relations bodies: the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (later known as the Australian Industrial Relations Commission), whose limited-term members could create industrial awards and settle interstate industrial disputes, and the Commonwealth Industrial Court, whose judges could interpret and enforce awards made by the Commission. [29]

There are few Privy Council decisions about the Australian Constitution that are cited in the High Court. [30] While the decision in Boilermakers is often cited, it is High Court decision that is cited, with the notation that it was affirmed by the Privy Council. [31]

Related Research Articles

The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), known from 1956 to 1973 as the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and from 1973 to 1988 as the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, was a tribunal with powers under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 that existed from 1956 until 2010. It was the central institution of Australian labour law. The AIRC replaced a previous system of industrial courts, which broadly speaking, was engaged in the same functions, but with superior independence and powers.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Owen Dixon</span> Australian judge and diplomat (1886–1972)

Sir Owen Dixon was an Australian judge and diplomat who served as the sixth Chief Justice of Australia. Many consider him to be Australia's most prominent 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.

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.

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration</span> Australian court (1904 to 1956)

The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration was an Australian court that operated from 1904 to 1956 with jurisdiction to hear and arbitrate interstate industrial disputes, and to make awards. It also had the judicial functions of interpreting and enforcing awards and hearing other criminal and civil cases relating to industrial relations law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Court of Australia</span> Australian superior federal court

The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law, along with some summary and indictable criminal matters. Cases are heard at first instance mostly by single judges. In cases of importance, a Full Court comprising three judges can be convened upon determination by the Chief Justice. The Court also has appellate jurisdiction, which is mostly exercised by a Full Court comprising three judges, the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the supreme courts of each of the states and territories. In relation to the other courts in the federal stream, it is superior to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for all jurisdictions except family law. It was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act.

<i>R v Barger</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Barger is a 1908 High Court of Australia case where the majority held that the taxation power could not be used by the Australian Parliament to indirectly regulate the working conditions of workers. In this case, an excise tariff was imposed on manufacturers, with an exemption being available for those who paid "fair and reasonable" wages to their employees.

<i>Kruger v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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. The majority of the bench found that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion. The High Court unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.

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>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1915)

New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.

<i>Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd</i> 1918 judgement in Australian law

Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1918 regarding judicial power of the Commonwealth which established that Chapter III of the Constitution required judges to be appointed for life to a specific court, subject only to the removal provisions in the constitution. The majority of the High Court held that because the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration was appointed for seven years and not life as required by s 72 of the Constitution, the Arbitration Court could not exercise judicial powers of the Commonwealth.

<i>Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association, known as the Railway Servants Case, is an early High Court of Australia case that held that employees of State railways could not be part of an interstate industrial dispute under the conciliation and arbitration power, applying the doctrine of "implied inter-governmental immunities". The doctrine was emphatically rejected by the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case, and in 1930 the High Court upheld the validity of an award binding on state railway authorities.

<i>Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co, commonly known as Whybrow's case or the Boot Trades case, was the third of a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia in 1910 concerning the boot manufacturing industry and the role of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in preventing and settling industrial disputes. In doing so the High Court considered the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to provide for common rule awards and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant prohibition against the Arbitration Court. The majority held in Whybrow that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law, but that different minimum wages were not inconsistent as it was possible to obey both laws. In Whybrow the High Court established the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" being treated "prima facie as genuine and real", with the majority holding that the High Court had power to order prohibition to correct jurisdictional error as part of its original jurisdiction. Finally in Whybrow the High Court unanimously held that the Federal Parliament had no constitutional power to provide for common rule awards.

<i>Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd</i> Landmark Australian court case

Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd, commonly known as the Woodworkers case or the Sawmillers case was a decision of the High Court of Australia in 1909 concerning the question whether the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration could make an award that was inconsistent with a State wages board determination. The High Court was divided 2:2 and thus the decision of the Chief Justice prevailed, in what is sometimes described as a statutory majority. Griffith CJ, O'Connor J agreeing, held that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with the minimum wages fixed by a Wages Board under a State law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Commonwealth Industrial Court</span> Former Court of Australia, replaced by the Federal Court of Australia

The Commonwealth Industrial Court, known as the Australian Industrial Court from 1973, was a specialist court to deal with industrial matters, principally the enforcement of awards and orders of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Over time it took on more matters and its judges were allocated a wide range of judicial tasks until it was replaced in 1977 by the Federal Court of Australia which had a more general jurisdiction covering matters arising under Australian federal law.

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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia [1956] HCA 10 , (1956) 94 CLR 254 Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif , High Court (Australia).
  2. ↑ "The Boilermakers' case: the separation of powers in Australia". Archived from the original on 12 March 2016.
  3. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 101.
  4. ↑ New South Wales v Commonwealth [1915] HCA 17, (1915) 20 CLR 54: the Inter-State Commission could not exercise judicial power despite the words of section 101 of the Constitution, [3] because it was set up by the executive and violated the conditions for being a Chapter III court.
  5. ↑ Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd [1918] HCA 56, (1918) 25 CLR 434: there was a distinction between judicial and arbitral functions, and the Arbitration Court could not exercise judicial powers of the Commonwealth because the President of the court was appointed for 7 years and not life as required by Chapter III of the Constitution.
  6. ↑ British Imperial Oil Co Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1925] HCA 4, (1925) 35 CLR 422: a power of appeal against an income tax assessment was part of the Judicial power of the Commonwealth which could not be conferred upon a Board of Appeal.
  7. ↑ Silk Bros Pty Ltd v State Electricity Commission (Vict) [1943] HCA 2, (1943) 37 CLR 1: a power to determine applications by landlords for recovery of premises and providing for the enforcement of the Board's orders were an invalid attempt to confer judicial power on a body that was not a Federal Court.
  8. ↑ R v Davison [1954] HCA 46, (1954) 90 CLR 353 Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif : a registrar was not an officer of the Bankruptcy Court and a legislative attempt to confer upon a registrar the power of making a judicial order was therefore void.
  9. 1 2 R v Federal Court of Bankruptcy; Ex parte Lowenstein [1938] HCA 10 , (1938) 59 CLR 556 at pp 564–566, 576, High Court (Australia)
  10. ↑ Johnston Fear, & Kingham & the Offset Printing Co Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1943] HCA 18 , (1943) 67 CLR 314 a p 326, High Court (Australia)
  11. ↑ Rola Co (Australia) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1944] HCA 17 , (1944) 69 CLR 185 at p 210, High Court (Australia)
  12. ↑ Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1947 (Cth) amended by Conciliation and Arbitration Act (No 2) 1951 (Cth).
  13. ↑ Metal Trades Award (1952) 73 CAR 325 at p 442 (16 January 1952) Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration.
  14. 1 2 "Mort's Dock". Tribune: The People's Paper. Communist Party of Australia. 2 March 1955. p. 3 – via National Library of Australia.
  15. ↑ "Two lacings for Short". Tribune: The People's Paper. Communist Party of Australia. 10 August 1955. p. 9 – via National Library of Australia.
  16. ↑ Duffy, Gavan (9 April 2005). "Australian history: The Labor split – 50 years on". News Weekly . Archived from the original on 19 April 2010. Retrieved 28 October 2010.
  17. ↑ Metal Trades Employers Association v Federated Ironworkers Association (1955) 80 CAR 325 (23 March 1955) Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration.
  18. ↑ Metal Trades Employers Association v Federated Ironworkers Association (1955) 81 CAR 102 (20 May 1955) Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration.
  19. ↑ Breach of award: Metal Trades Employers Association v Boilermakers Society of Australia (1955) 81 CAR 112 (31 May 1955) Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. "Transcript and orders" (PDF). pp. 14–26 – via Privy Council.
  20. ↑ Contempt of court: Metal Trades Employers Association v Boilermakers Society of Australia (1955) 81 CAR 231 (28 June 1955) Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. "Transcript and orders" (PDF). pp. 37–55 – via Privy Council.
  21. ↑ A writ of prohibition is one of the prerogative writs, which are traditionally brought in the name of the Monarch and the person who must show cause is named as the defendant. In this usage ex parte means 'on the application of' rather than its other use as a case heard in the absence of a party. Thus the case name means the Queen (R) v the defendants (the judges and employers' association); on the application of (ex parte) the Boilermakers. The order to show cause is a rule nisi, and if prohibition is granted, the rule is made absolute.
  22. 1 2 Thomson, D C (29 January 2024). "Separation of Powers: The Boilermakers' Case". Sydney Law Review. (1958) 2 Sydney Law Review 480.
  23. ↑ "Order in council granting leave to appeal" (PDF). pp. 121–3 – via Privy Council.
  24. ↑ "Case for the Respondent" (PDF)– via Privy Council.
  25. 1 2 3 Attorney-General (Cth) v The Queen [1957] UKPC 4 , [1957] AC 288; [1957] UKPCHCA 1 , (1957) 95 CLR 529, Privy Council (on appeal fromAustralia)
  26. ↑ Gleeson, M (2008). "The Privy Council – An Australian Perspective" (PDF).
  27. ↑ At the time there was no provision for dissent or separate judgments in the Privy Council. Instead the advice to the Queen was determined by a majority of judges who heard the appeal and one judge would be chosen to write the judgment. Decisions of the Privy Council tended to be expressed on narrow grounds, a tendency attributed to the need to reflect the agreement of the majority of judges. [26]
  28. ↑ Zines, L (2008). The High Court and the Constitution. Federation Press. pp. 214–5. ISBN   9781862876910.
  29. ↑ Hanks, PJ (1990). Australian Constitutional Law, Materials and Commentary (4th ed.). Butterworths. p. 241.
  30. ↑ Gleeson, M (2007). "The influence of the Privy Council on Australia" (PDF).
  31. ↑ eg North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Limited v Northern Territory [2015] HCA 41 , (2015) 256 CLR 569, High Court.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.