Tag: High Court (page 1 of 3)

Border Closures and s 92: Clive Palmer’s Quest to Enter WA

This is one of a special series of posts exploring the public law implications of the COVID-19 pandemic. For more information on the Gilbert + Tobin Centre’s work in the area of public law and public health, see here.Read the rest

Dr Yunupingu’s claim for native title compensation – the Constitutional path not yet trodden

BY WILLIAM ISDALE

Late last year, Dr Galarrwuy Yunupingu made news when he announced his intention to make a compensation claim in relation to Commonwealth grants of mining interests in the Gove Peninsula in the 1960s. The claim was lodged … Read the rest

The Rightful Place of First Nations: Love & Thoms

BY EDDIE SYNOT

This is the first of two posts AUSPUBLAW is featuring on the High Court’s Love and Thoms decision. Elisa Arcioni and Rayner Thwaites’  accompanying post is here.

The High Court recently delivered its highly anticipated decision … Read the rest

Aboriginal Australians not vulnerable to deportation

BY ELISA ARCIONI AND RAYNER THWAITES

This is the second of two posts AUSPUBLAW is featuring on the High Court’s Love and Thoms decision. Eddie Synot’s accompanying post is here.

Introduction

On Tuesday 11 February 2020, the High Court … Read the rest

Extreme Examples in Constitutional Law

BY JACK MAXWELL

‘The spectre was raised in argument of a Government seeking to rule without Parliament or, at the least, dispense with its sitting for very lengthy periods. … We do not believe that it is helpful to consider

Read the rest

Picking up where Rizeq left off: Masson v Parsons [2019] HCA 21, s 79 of the Judiciary Act and the “otherwise provides” test

BY CELIA WINNETT

In Rizeq v Western Australia (‘Rizeq’), the High Court seized the opportunity to resolve some of the doubts that had “regrettably” (at [39]) arisen concerning the operation of s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)Read the rest

There and Back Again? The High Court’s Decision in Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery [2019] HCA 11

BY ALEX DEAGON

This is the first of three posts AUSPUBLAW is featuring on the High Court’s  decision in Clubb v Edwards. Arisha Arif and Emily Azar’s accompanying post is here and Josh Gibson’s accompanying post is here.Read the rest

Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery: Structured Proportionality – Has Anything Changed?

BY ARISHA ARIF AND EMILY AZAR

This is the second of three posts AUSPUBLAW is featuring on the High Court’s  decision in Clubb v Edwards. Alex Deagon’s accompanying post is here, and Josh Gibson’s accompanying post is hereRead the rest

Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery: The High Court and the Role of Amicus Curiae

BY JOSH GIBSON

This is the third of three posts AUSPUBLAW is featuring on the High Court’s  decision in Clubb v Edwards. Alex Deagon’s accompanying post is here, and Arisha Arif and Emily Azar’s accompanying post is hereRead the rest

Timber Creek and Australia’s Second Chance to Grasp the Opportunity of Mabo

BY SEAN BRENNAN

This is the second of two posts AUSPUBLAW is featuring on the High Court’s Timber Creek decision. Aaron Moss and William Isdale’s accompanying post is here.

With the handing down of the High Court appeal decision … Read the rest

Older posts

© 2020 AUSPUBLAW

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑