Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts explained
| Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts |
| Court: | High Court of Australia |
| Full Name: | In Re The Judiciary Act 1903-1920
In Re The Navigation Act 1912-1920 |
| Citations: | |
| Opinions: | - The provisions of the Judiciary Act purporting to allow the High Court to hear advisory opinions were invalid (per Knox, Duffy, Powers, Rich and Starke)
- The word "matter" in chapter III of the Constitution relates to legal rights or duties currently in dispute. It does not extend to theoretical legal interpretation (per Knox, Duffy, Powers, Rich and Starke)
|
| Judge: | |
| Number Of Judges: | 6 |
| Date Decided: | 16 May 1921 |
Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257 is a landmark judgment of the High Court of Australia. The matter related to what is a legal matter and the High Court's ability to issue opinion outside a case.[1] [2]
Background
The Attorney-General of Victoria, raised an objection that section 88 of the Judiciary Act 1903 was beyond the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament.[3]
Finding
The court found that the High Court could not issue legal opinions unattached to a specific case. The joint majority judgment stated:[4] [5]
On the issue of what constituted a matter they said:[6] [7] [8]
References
- Helen Irving* "Advisory Opinions, The Rule Of Law, And The Separation Of Powers", Macquarie Law Journal (2004) Vol 4 105
- John M. Williams, "Advisory Opinions: 'A Well-Covered Harbour'", Bond Law Review volume 22 | Issue 3 Article 13 p. 169.
- http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1921/20.html Re Judiciary Act 1903 and Navigation Act 1912
- http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1921/20.html Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts
- [Robert French|Justice RS French]
- http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1921/20.html Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts
- [Paul Kelly (journalist)#Personal life|Margaret Kelly]
- Leslie Zines, Cowen and Zines's Federal Jurisdiction in Australia p. 16.
