Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:20:02.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Convergence of form and Function: Commentary on Dixon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Brendan Lim
Brendan Lim*
Affiliation:
New South Wales Bar; Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, UNSW
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. 505 - 509
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 Dalgarno v Hannah (1903) 1 CLR 1.

2 Ibid 11.

3 Ibid 12. See also Re Macks; Ex parte Saint (2000) 204 CLR 158, 211 [140] (McHugh J).

4 Dalgarno v Hannah (1903) 1 CLR 1, 11.

5 Ibid 12.

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

7 Victoria v Commonwealth (1971) 122 CLR 353, 396 (Windeyer J) (‘Payroll Tax Case’)

8 (1920) 28 CLR 129, 145.

9 Ibid 142.

10 Ibid 149, quoting Vacher & Sons Ltd v London Society of Compositors [1913] AC 107, 113 (Lord Haldane LC).

11 Ibid 152.

12 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292, 319.

13 SGH Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 210 CLR 51, 75 [41]–[42] (Gummow J).

14 Dixon, Rosalind, ‘The Functional Constitution: Re-Reading the 2014 High Court Constitutional Term’ (2015) 43(3) Federal Law Review 455, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Ibid 492.

16 Goldsworthy, Jeffrey, ‘Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism’ (2009) 4(4) Philosophy Compass 682, 692 (citations omitted).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Goldsworthy, Jeffrey, ‘The Case for Originalism’ in Huscroft, Grant and Miller, Bradley W (eds), The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation (Cambridge University Press, 2011) 42, 60–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Dixon, above n 14, 468-9.

18 Gleeson, Murray, ‘Judicial Legitimacy’ (2000) 20 Australian Bar Review 4, 9.Google Scholar

19 See, eg, Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR 162, 182 [23]–[24] (Gleeson CJ), 200–1 [90] (Gummow, Kirby and Crennan JJ); Rowe v Electoral Commissioner (2010) 243 CLR 1, 38 [78] (French CJ); Street v Queensland Bar Association (1989) 168 CLR 461, 566 (Gaudron J); Transcript of Proceedings, Sportsbet Pty Ltd v New South Wales [2011] HCATrans 52 (11 March 2011) 106–9; Simpson, Amelia, ‘The High Court's Conception of Discrimination: Origins, Applications and Implications’ (2007) 29 Sydney Law Review 263, 286Google Scholar; Lim, Brendan, ‘Review Essay: An Australian Reads Living Originalism’ (2012) 34 Sydney Law Review 809, 825–8.Google Scholar

20 See, eg, Betfair Pty Ltd v Western Australia (2008) 234 CLR 418, 459–64 [33]–[48] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), in relation to s 92; O’Donoghue v Ireland (2008) 234 CLR 599, 625–6 [55]–[57] (Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ), in relation to implications from federalism; Grollo v Palmer (1995) 184 CLR 348, 363–6 (Brennan CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ), in relation to implications from Ch III.

21 See, eg, Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR 162, 177–9 [13]–[19] (Gleeson CJ), 203–4 [100] (Gummow, Kirby and Crennan JJ); contra at 224–5 [181] (Heydon J). See also Adrienne Stone, ‘Comparativism in Constitutional Interpretation’ [2009] New Zealand Law Review 45.

22 See, eg, Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 513, 657–8 (Kirby J); Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562, 622 [168] (Kirby J).

23 Sawer, Geoffrey, Federation under Strain: Australia 1972–1975 (Melbourne University Press, 1977) 174.Google Scholar

24 The Hon Justice William MC Gummow AC, ‘Law and the Use of History’ in Gleeson, Justin T and Higgins, Ruth CA (eds), Constituting Law: Legal Argument and Social Values (Federation Press, 2011) 61, 74–5.Google Scholar

25 Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31.

26 Ibid 82.

27 Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union v Mammoet Australia Pty Ltd (2013) 248 CLR 619, 632–3 [40]–[41] (Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ), quoting Carr v Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138, 142–3 [5]–[7] (Gleeson CJ).

28 See Stellios, James, ‘Conceptions of Judicial Review: A Comment on Professor Rosalind Dixon's Article “The Functional Constitution”’ (2015) 43(3) Federal Law Review 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 See Gabrielle Appleby, ‘Functionalism in Constitutional Interpretation: Factual and Participatory Challenges’ (2015) Federal Law Review 493.

30 Zines, Leslie, The High Court and the Constitution (Federation Press, 5th ed, 2008) 1.Google Scholar