|
Landmark Decision
Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States. In Commonwealth countries, a reported decision is said to be a ''leading decision'' when it has come to be generally regarded as settling the law of the question involved. In 1914, Canadian jurist Augustus Henry Frazer Lefroy said "a 'leading case' sone that settles the law upon some important point". A leading decision may settle the law in more than one way. It may do so by: * Distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of ''stare decisis''; * Establishing a "test" (that is, a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in futur ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Common Law
Common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than statutes. Although common law may incorporate certain statutes, it is largely based on precedent—judicial rulings made in previous similar cases. The presiding judge determines which precedents to apply in deciding each new case. Common law is deeply rooted in Precedent, ''stare decisis'' ("to stand by things decided"), where courts follow precedents established by previous decisions. When a similar case has been resolved, courts typically align their reasoning with the precedent set in that decision. However, in a "case of first impression" with no precedent or clear legislative guidance, judges are empowered to resolve the issue and establish new precedent. The common law, so named because it was common to all the king's courts across England, originated in the practices of the courts of the English kings in the centuries fo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
World Heritage Zone
The world is the totality of entities, the whole of reality, or everything that exists. The nature of the world has been conceptualized differently in different fields. Some conceptions see the world as unique, while others talk of a "plurality of worlds". Some treat the world as one simple object, while others analyze the world as a complex made up of parts. In scientific cosmology, the world or universe is commonly defined as "the totality of all space and time; all that is, has been, and will be". Theories of modality talk of possible worlds as complete and consistent ways how things could have been. Phenomenology, starting from the horizon of co-given objects present in the periphery of every experience, defines the world as the biggest horizon, or the "horizon of all horizons". In philosophy of mind, the world is contrasted with the mind as that which is represented by the mind. Theology conceptualizes the world in relation to God, for example, as God's creation, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Section 44 Of The Constitution Of Australia
Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia, Australian Constitution lists the grounds for disqualification on who may become a candidate for election to the Parliament of Australia. It has generally arisen for consideration by the High Court of Australia, High Court sitting in its capacity as the Court of Disputed Returns (Australia), Court of Disputed Returns. It has been reviewed several times, but has not been amended. Following several disqualifications under sub-section 44(i), in particular the 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis, in which several high-profile politicians were forced to resign, a new review of the whole section was instituted on 28 November 2017. The Constitution Section 44 of the Constitution states: The Australian Electoral Commission reproduces the section in its Candidates Handbook, where it draws particular attention to s 44(i) and (iv). As to the nomination form, it advises that to give "false or misleading information", or to "om ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Dual Citizen
Multiple citizenship (or multiple nationality) is a person's legal status in which a person is at the same time recognized by more than one sovereign state, country under its nationality law, nationality and citizenship law as a national or citizen of that country. There is no international treaty, convention that determines the nationality or citizenship status of a person, which is consequently determined exclusively under national laws, which often conflict with each other, thus allowing for multiple citizenship situations to arise. A person holding multiple citizenship is, generally, entitled to the rights of citizenship in each country whose citizenship they are holding (such as right to a passport, right to enter the country, right to work, right to own property, suffrage, right to vote, etc.) but may also be subject to obligations of citizenship (such as a potential obligation for national service, becoming subject to taxation on worldwide income, etc.). Some countries d ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sykes V Cleary
''Sykes v Cleary''.The Case Stated (by Dawson J), and then the individual judgments, are separately paragraph-numbered. was a significant decision of the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns on 25 November 1992. The case was a leading decision on Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia, dealing with both what constitutes an office of profit under the Crown and allegiance to a foreign power. The majority held that a teacher employed by the State of Victoria held an "office of profit under the Crown" within the meaning of s 44(iv) and so was "incapable of being chosen". A person who held dual citizenship was incapable of being chosen unless they had taken all reasonable steps to renounce the other citizenship. Background The former Labor Party Prime Minister Bob Hawke had resigned as the member for Wills in 1992. Independent candidate Phil Cleary was declared elected in the 1992 by-election; he had the highest first-preference vote, and a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Re Canavan
''Re Canavan; Re Ludlam; Re Waters; Re Roberts o 2 Re Joyce; Re Nash; Re Xenophon'' (commonly referred to as the "Citizenship Seven case") is a set of cases, heard together by the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, arising from doubts as to the eligibility of a number of members of Parliament to be elected to Parliament because of section 44(i) of the Constitution. The Court unanimously held on 27 October 2017 that a dual citizen, irrespective of whether they knew about their citizenship status, will be disqualified from Parliament unless they are irremediably prevented by foreign law from renouncing the foreign citizenship and have taken all steps that are reasonably required to renounce that foreign citizenship; it identified a "constitutional imperative" that no Australian citizen should be irremediably excluded from participation in representative government.: paras 43-46, 72 The Court rejected arguments that would change the approach to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
National School Chaplaincy Programme
The National Student Wellbeing Program is an Australian federal government programme which funds religious chaplains and non religious "student wellbeing officers" in Australian primary and secondary schools. They are to provide pastoral care in order to support student wellbeing. Practitioners are not allowed to "provide religious instruction or religious counselling" or "proselytise" and must follow the rules and qualification requirements of the NSWP. The program was formerly called the National School Chaplaincy Programme, and was set up in 2006 by the Howard government. From 2014 to 2023, there was no option for a non religious counsellor, with all chaplains requiring to be "ordained, commissioned or endorsed by a recognised religious institution". In 2023, schools regained the ability to use a non religious counsellor, and the name of the program was changed to the National Student Wellbeing Program. The grants are $20,280 a year for schools and $24,336 for schools in remot ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Williams V Commonwealth (No 2)
''Williams v Commonwealth of Australia'' 014HCA 23 (also known as ''Williams (No 2)'') judgment Judgement (or judgment) is the evaluation of given circumstances to make a decision. Judgement is also the ability to make considered decisions. In an informal context, a judgement is opinion expressed as fact. In the context of a legal trial ... of the High Court.''Williams v Commonwealth of Australia'' It is related to executive prerogative and spending in relation to the Australian Government's National School Chaplaincy Programme. Background Following the decision in '' Williams v Commonwealth'' (''Williams (No 1)''), the Commonwealth enacted the ''Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No 3)''See thFinancial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) 2012 (Cth) s 32B/ref> in an attempt to validate the National School Chaplaincy Programme and other similar Commonwealth spending programs. Mr Williams brought new proceedings in the High Court challenging the validi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Williams V Commonwealth
''Williams v Commonwealth of Australia''. (also known as the "School chaplains case") is a landmark judgment of the High Court. The matter related to the power of the Commonwealth executive government to enter into contracts and spend public moneys under section 61 of the Australian Constitution. Background As part of the National School Chaplaincy Programme, the Commonwealth government entered into a contract with a company, Scripture Union Queensland, for the provision of chaplaincy services at a State school in Queensland. The contract was described as the Darling Heights Funding Agreement. Ronald Williams, the father of four children attending the school, brought proceedings in the High Court challenging the validity of the funding agreement and the making of payments under the funding agreement. Mr Williams contended that the Commonwealth did not have power under s 61 of the Constitution to enter into the funding agreement, and that the funding agreement was prohibited ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Commonwealth V The ACT
The Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 was an Act of Parliament, act of parliament of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly that was intended to legalise Same-sex marriage in the Australian Capital Territory, same-sex marriage in the ACT. It was first presented to the ACT Legislative Assembly on 19 September 2013 by the ACT Attorney-General, Simon Corbell. The law intended to build on the existing recognition of same-sex unions in the Australian Capital Territory, which included recognition of de facto partners, civil partnerships and same-sex-only civil unions (with civil unions being replaced by same-sex marriage if the Act was successfully passed). The Act was passed in the Legislative Assembly on 22 October 2013. It came into operation on 7 November although wedding ceremonies under the provisions of the Act did not occur until 7 December 2013. Alan Wright (Player) and Joel Player were the first same-sex couple to marry under the new laws. Upon the law's co ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Plaintiff M70/2011 V Minister For Immigration And Citizenship
''Plaintiff M70'' is a 2011 decision of the High Court of Australia. The lawsuit concerned an injunction sought by multiple Afghan asylum seekers against immigration minister Chris Bowen. The injunction was to prevent Bowen from deporting the plaintiffs to Malaysia, pursuant to s198A of the Migration Act (a provision since repealed). The purpose of the deportation was to avoid their asylum application from being assessed by Australia. The court decided that the Commonwealth government did not have lawful authority to force resettlement of the plaintiffs to Malaysia. The Migration Act's s198A deportation power required a declaration be first made by the Minister about the recipient country's refugee protections; and it was found this declaration had been made invalidly. A majority found that Malaysia was unable to be declared a safe country for asylum seekers pursuant to s198A, due to Malaysia not being bound to protect refugees either at domestic or international law. As Bo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
