Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T16:31:15.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter Se Questions: Removal to High Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Article Commentary
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , June 1965 , pp. 310 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © 1965 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Since the writing of this comment the observations of Kitto J., set out below, have been agreed with and endorsed by the Full High Court in R. v. Green; Ex parte Cheung Cheuk To (unreported Judgment—1 July 1965).

References

1 [1963] V.R. 102 ; (1962) 4 F.L.R. 409.

2 [1963] V.R. 102, 106.

3 R. v. Governor of Metropolitan Gaol; Ex parte Molinari [1962] V.R. 156, 164; see cases cited, especially Re Drew [1919] V.L.R. 600, R. v. Maryborough Licensing Court (1919) 27 C.L.R. 249 and Land Settlement Development Co. Ltd v. Housing Commissioner of N.S. W. [1947] A.L.R. 578 (H.C.).

4 ‘ 40A.–(l.) Where, in any cause pending in the Supreme Court of a State, there,arises any question asto the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States … it shall be the duty of the Court to proceed no further in the cause, and the cause shallbe by virtue of this Act, and without any order of the High Court, removed to the High Court.’

5 (1964) 38 A.L.J.R. 99.

6 Ibid. 100.

7 (1919) 27 C.L.R. 249 ; also per Starke J. in O'Neill v. O'Connell (1946) 72 C.L.R.101, 116; and this was the view adopted by Sholl J. in Molinari's case and in the present case. The Maryborough case however was not referred to by Kitto J.

8 (1964) 38 A.L.J.R. 99, 100.

9 Ibid.

10 Bank Nationalization Case (1949) 79 C.L.R. 497, Nelungaloo v. Commonwealth (1950) 81 C.L.R. 144, Grace Bros v. Commonwealth (1950) 82 C.L.R. 357.

11 (1964) 38 A.L.J.R. 99, 100.