Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T02:50:53.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Limitation of Appeals to the Privy Council from the High Court of Australia, from Federal Courts other than the High Court, from the Supreme Courts of the Territories and from Courts Exercising Federal Jurisdiction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

A. F. Mason
A. F. Mason*
Affiliation:
Commonwealth of Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The main purpose of this article is to review the limitations that will be imposed by the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Bill on appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from the High Court of Australia, federal courts other than the High Court, and the Supreme Courts of the Territories as well as the limitations and restrictions which now apply to appeals to the Privy Council from the High Court and courts exercising federal jurisdiction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1968 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © 1968 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 Parkin and Cowper v. James and Others (1905) 2 C.L.R. 315, 330-335.

2 Moore, , The Commonwealth of Australia (2nd ed. 1910) 220Google Scholar. See also the speech of the Attorney-General, Mr Deakin, in the debate on the Judiciary Bill 1903, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, vol. xiii, 587 ff., 9 June 1903.

3 Quick, and Garran, , The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth. (1901) 735Google Scholar.

4 Deakin, , The Federal Story: the Inner History of the Federal Cause 1880-1900l (2nd ed. 1963) 150 ffGoogle Scholar.

5 It may be that the Conventions intended to eliminate or restrict the appeal from State courts to the Privy Council and that by inadvertence significant words were-omitted from the draft. See speech of Higgins, Mr, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, vol. xiii, 634, 9 June 1903Google Scholar.

6 Prince v. Gagnon (1882) 8 App. Cas. 103.

7 Clerque v. Murray [1903] A.C. 521.

8 The Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd v. The Attorney-General for the Commonwealth (Royal Commissions case) (1912) 15 C.L.R. 183.

9 Nelungaloo Pty Ltd v. The Commonwealth (1951-1952) 85 C.L.R. 545.

10 The Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd v. The Attorney-General for the Commonwealth (1912) 15 C.L.R. 183.

11 Notably by Dixon K.C., Mr Owen (as he then was) in his evidence before the Royal Commission on the Constitution (1929)Google Scholar and by Cowen, , Federal Jurisdiction in Australia (1959)Google Scholar.

12 Lorenzo v. Carey (1921) 29 C.L.R. 243, 251-252.

13 See the speeches of Mr Higgins and the Attorney-General, Mr Deakin, on the Judiciary Bill, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, vol. xiii, 1199-1205, 23 June 1903.

14 (1906) 4 C.L.R. 356.

15 Section 30 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) conferred original jurisdiction on the High Court in all matters arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation.

16 Bailey, , “The Federal Jurisdiction of State Courts” (1939-1941) 2Google Scholar Res Judicatae 109, 184.

17 Webb v. Outtrim (1906) 4 C.L.R. 356, 361-362.

18 (1907) 4 C.L.R. 1087.

19 (1906) 4 C.L.R. 356.

20 (1907) 4 C.L.R. 1087, 1092.

21 Ibid. 1137-1140.

22 (1925) 36 C.L.R. 170.

23 The Commonwealth v. The Limerick Steamship Company Limited: The Commonwealth v. Kidman and Others (1924) 35 C.L.R. 69; The Commonwealth v. Kreglinger and Fernau Limited: The Commonwealth v. Bardsley (1926) 37 C.L.R. 393.

24 (1924) 35 C.L.R. 69.

25 (1926) 37 C.L.R. 393.

26 (1906) 4 C.L.R. 356, [1907] A.C. 81.

27 [1926] A.C. 482.

28 [1935] A.C. 500.

29 [1947] A.C. 127.

30 Ibid. 145.

31 Ibid. 150.

32 Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth).

33 (1924) 35 C.L.R. 69.

34 Sawer, , Cases on the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (2nd ed. 1957) 594Google Scholar.

35 [1947] A.C. 87.

36 Lockwood v. The Commonwealth (1953) 90 C.L.R. 177.

37 Booth v. Shelmerdine Bros Pty Ltd [1924] V.L.R. 276; Ffrost v. Stevenson (1937) 58 C.L.R. 528, 570-571; Cowen, Federal Jurisdiction in Australia (1959) 193-195.

38 (1937) 58 C.L.R. 528, 570-571.

39 (1957) 97 C.L.R. 355.

40 Ibid. 360-361. (footnotes omitted from original text).

41 National Service Act 1951-1966 (Cth) section 29B.

42 Ibid. section 29C (7.).

43 Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates (House of Representatives) vol. 47, 1202-1205, 23 September 1965.

44 Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates (House of Representatives) 834-835, 6 September 1967.

45 See the speech of Greenwood, Senator, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates (Senate) 772 ff., 2 May 1968Google Scholar.

46 See the reference by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, to the petition for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the Commonwealth Industrial Court in Cameron v. Davis, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates (House of Representatives) 867, 4 Apri1 1968.

47 Loc. cit.

48 Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates (House of Representatives) 867-868, 4 April 1968.