No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2025
The course of judicial decisions given pre-federation in the United States and England where the remedy of certiorari or of injunction was granted or refused against public officers assists an understanding of the apparent oddity in the omission of certiorari and the inclusion of injunction in the remedies specified in s 75(v) of the Constitution. Further, the significance of the inclusion of the injunction has yet to be fully examined in the case law dealing with s 75(v).
This paper was first presented at the Public Law Weekend organised by the Centre for International and Public Law, ANU College of Law on 15 November 2013. The writer is indebted to the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Mr Justin Gleeson SC, for his commentary on this paper in its original form.
1 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
2 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Nystrom (2006) 228 CLR 566, 586–9 [52]–[59]; Herzfeld, Perry, Prince, Thomas and Tully, Stephen, Interpretation and Use of Legal Sources: The Law of Australia (Thomson Reuters, 2013) § 25.1.1860–70.Google Scholar
3 New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006) 229 CLR 1.
4 CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172, 196–7 [95]–[96]; DJL v Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226, 245–6 [33]–[37].
5 38 & 39 Vict, c 77, Section 33, Sched; RSC O.58, r1. As to motions for a new trial, after verdict, see John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Gagic (2007) 230 CLR 291, 299–301 [21]–[24].
6 Halsbury, Lord (ed Laws of England (Butterworth, 1909) vol 10, 160–1.Google Scholar
7 (1910) 11 CLR 1, 48–9 (‘Whybrow’).
8 See Leeming, Mark, Authority to Decide (Federation Press, 2012) 284.Google Scholar
9 Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476, 507.
10 See, eg, Aitken, L J W, ‘The High Court's Power to Grant Certiorari — The Unresolved Question’ (1986) 16 Federal Law Review 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 229 US 162, 170–1 (1913) (‘Degge’).
12 187 US 94 (1902).
13 Ibid 110.
14 Board of Liquidation v McComb, 92 US 531, 541 (1875). See also Johnson v Towsley, 80 US (13 Wall) 72, 83–7 (1871); Noble v Union River Logging Railroad Co, 147 US 165, 172 (1893); and Mashaw, Jerry, ‘Federal Administration and Administrative Law in the Gilded Age’ (2010) 119 Yale Law Journal 1362, 1400–2.Google Scholar
15 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
16 147 US 165, 171 (1893) (‘Noble’).
17 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 166 (1803).
18 Charles Alan Wright and Mary Kay Kane, Law of Federal Courts (West Group, 6th ed, 2002) § 14Google Scholar; Chemerinsky, Erwin, Federal Jurisdiction (Aspen Publishers, 5th ed, 2007) § 2.6.1.Google Scholar
19 See the discussion of this part of the Marbury v Madison judgment in Haskins, George and Johnson, Herbert, History of the Supreme Court of the United States (Macmillan, 1981) vol 2, 193–6.Google Scholar
20 (1833) 6 Sim 214; 58 ER 574.
21 25 US (12 Wheat) 19, 29 (1827).
22 Now found scattered throughout 5 USC.
23 5 USC § 706.
24 Pierce, Richard, Administrative Law Treatise (Aspen Publishers, 5th ed, 2010), vol 3, § 18.4.Google Scholar
25 Lord Halsbury, above n 7, 160–1.
26 Groenvelt v Burwell (1699) 1 Ld Raym 454, 467; 91 ER 1202, 1211.
27 R v Sharman; Ex parte Denton [1898] 1 QB 578, 578–80.
28 (Thomson Reuters Australia, 4th ed, 2009) §12.105.
29 Ibid.
30 [1906] 2 KB 501, 534-5; reversed on other grounds [1907] AC 420.
31 (1923) 32 CLR 518, 584.
32 5 & 6 Will 4, c 76. See generally Cornish, William, Anderson, J Stuart, Cocks, Ray et al, The Oxford History of the Laws of England (Oxford University Press, 2010) vol 10, pt 2, 429–7.Google Scholar
33 (1837) 2 My & Cr 613; 40 ER 773.
34 Joyce, William, The Law and Practice of Injunctions in Equity and at Common Law (R Clarke & Company, 1872) vol 1, ch 5, pt 1, s 1.Google Scholar
35 A-G v Corporation of Norwich (1848) 16 Sim 225; 60 ER 860.
36 Reading v The King [1949] 2 KB 232; Reading v A-G [1951] AC 507; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Day (2008) 236 CLR 163, 180-1 [34].
37 (1867) LR 3 Eq 436, 455.
38 (1838) 4 My & Cr 249, 255; 41 ER 98, 100.
39 See Leeming, Mark, ‘Five Judicature Fallacies’ in Gleeson, Justin, Watson, J A and Higgins, Ruth (eds), Historical Foundations of Australian Law (Federation Press, 2013) vol 1, 169, 171–3.Google Scholar
40 Overseers of the Poor of Walsall v London and North Western Railway Co (1878) 4 App Case 30, 40.
41 [1922] 2 AC 128, 155–6.
42 (2010) 239 CLR 531, 567–8.
43 (2010) 239 CLR 531, 571 [65].
44 [1993] AC 682, 696, 701–2, 705–6.
45 (1918) 25 CLR 241.
46 Difficulties resolved in England as late as M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377; for Scotland see Davidson v Scottish Ministers 2006 SLT 110; [2005] UKHL 74.
47 Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1, 35 [50]–[51], 99 [273].
48 (1998) 194 CLR 247, 262 [37].
49 (1992) 175 CLR 564, 581–2, 595–6.
50 (2003) 211 CLR 476, 508 [82].
51 (1999) 197 CLR 510, 552 [107]–[108] (‘Abebe’).
52 (2002) 76 ALJR 966, 977 [46]–47] (‘Muin’).
53 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 418(3).
54 Cf the decision of Weinberg J in Lu v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 543, [30]–[33], [48]–[50], [61], in which a merits case unsuccessfully sought to be dressed in equitable clothing.
55 Saunders, Cheryl, ‘Constitution as Catalyst: Different Paths within Australian Administrative Law’ (2012) 10(2) New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law 143, 161.Google Scholar
56 See Leeming, Authority to Decide, above n 9, 250.
57 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Third Session, Melbourne, 1898, vol V, 1874-1875.
58 The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (Angus and Robertson, 1900) 783.