Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T20:55:36.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary on ‘State Jurisdictional Residue: What Remains to a State Court when its Chapter III Functions are Exhausted?’ by Professor Helen Irving

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

James Stellios
James Stellios*
Affiliation:
ANU College of Law, Australian National University; Barrister, NSW Bar.
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
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 1 - 6
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 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

An earlier version of this commentary on Professor Helen Irving's paper was provided to an event organised by the Australian Association of Constitutional Law, Sydney.

References

1 (2011) 245 CLR 1 ('Momcilovic’).

2 See K H, Bailey, ‘The Federal Jurisdiction of State Courts’ (1939–1941) 2 Res Judicatae 109; J A La Nauze, The Making of the Australian Constitution (Melbourne University Press, 1974) 130–1Google Scholar.

3 See John M, Williams, The Australian Constitution: A Documentary History (Melbourne University Press, 2005) 1167–8Google Scholar.

4 Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51 ('Kable’).

5 As to the word ‘matter', see, eg, In re Judiciary and Navigations Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257.

6 See Philip Morris Incorporated v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457, 512-4 (Mason J), cf 548 (Wilson J); Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570, 607–10 (Mason, Murphy, Brennan and Deane JJ); Stack v Coastal Securities (No 9) (1983) 154 CLR 261, 293–4 (Mason, Brennan and Deane JJ).

7 Felton v, Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367; MZXOT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 233 CLR 601Google Scholar.

8 Philip Morris Incorporated v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457; Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570; Stack v Coastal Securities (No 9) (1983) 154 CLR 261; Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511.

9 Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334; Solomons v District Court of New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 119.

10 See, eg, Le Mesurier v Connor (1929) 42 CLR 481.

11 Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531 ('Kirk’).

12 Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2006) 228 CLR 45 ('Forge’).

13 Commonwealth v Hospital Contribution Fund (1982) 150 CLR 49, 62 (Mason J).

14 (2002) 211 CLR 119.

15 Ibid 132.

16 See James, Stellios, ‘State/Territory Human Rights Legislation in a Federal Judicial System’ (2007) 19 Public Law Review 52, 64–5Google Scholar.

17 (2011) 245 CLR 1, 221–2.

18 Will Bateman and James Stellios, ‘Chapter III of the Constitution, Federal Jurisdiction and Dialogue Charters of Human Rights’ (2012) 36 Melbourne University Law Review 1.

19 Stellios, above n 17, 69.

20 See the suggestion by Gummow J in South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, [147] that the enforcement of criminal law may not be taken away from the courts.

21 (2011) 245 CLR 1, 70 (French CJ).

22 See, eg, Re Macks; Ex parte Saint (2000) 204 CLR 158, although the factum in that case was an invalid judgment of a federal court.

23 See the analysis in Bateman and Stellios, above n 19, 32–33.

24 See, eg, XYZ v Commonwealth (2006) 227 CLR 532; Pape v Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1; Williams v Commonwealth (2012) 288 ALR 410.

25 Although I note that, in n 92, Professor Irving suggests that the declaration power would be invalid on either approach.