Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:27:50.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptions of Judicial Review: Commentary on Dixon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

James Stellios
James Stellios*
Affiliation:
Australian National University; 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 43 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 511 - 516
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 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.)

References

1 (1997) 189 CLR 520.

2 Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51.

3 As to which see Stellios, James, Zines's The High Court and the Constitution (6th ed, Federation Press, 2015) 280–294.Google Scholar

4 See, eg, Attorney-General (NT) v Emmerson (2014) 253 CLR 393, 426 [44].

5 See most recently McCloy v New South Wales [2015] HCA 34, [29] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ); [149]–[150] (Gageler J); [247] (Nettle J); [318] (Gordon J).

6 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129.

7 Gageler, Stephen, ‘Foundations of Australian Federalism and the Role of Judicial Review’ (1987) 17 Federal Law Review 162, 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory (2013) 250 CLR 441.

9 Although the need for uniform regulation was seen in limited terms as required by the demands of private international law: see Stellios, above n 3, 28.

10 (2014) 252 CLR 416.

11 See New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006) 229 CLR 1, 245 [612]–[613] (Kirby J) (‘Work Choices case’).

12 (2010) 242 CLR 1, 44 [63].

13 See R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, 279–80 (‘Boilermakers’ case’).

14 See Stellios, above n 3, 315–19.

15 See Stellios, James, ‘Kable, Preventative Detention and the Dilemmas of Chapter III’ (2014) 88 Australian Law Journal 52, esp 66.Google Scholar

16 Lim, Brendan, ‘Attributes and Attribution of State Courts – Federalism and the Kable Principle’ (2012) 40 Federal Law Review 31, 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 [2015] HCA 34.

18 Ibid [111].

19 Ibid [114].

20 Gageler, Stephen, ‘Beyond the Text: A Vision of the Structure and Function of the Constitution’ (2009) 32 Australian Bar Review 138Google Scholar; Gageler, above n 8.

21 [2015] HCA 34, [110].

22 Moore, W Harrison, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (Legal Books, 1902) 329.Google Scholar

23 (2004) 219 CLR 562.

24 Ibid 612 [137].