UNIFORM TAXATION CASE 1942

CHIEF JUSTICE LATHAM. [a] pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour –– but such a decision is not an element Read More …

THE HIGH COURT’S DECISION IN BURNS V CORBETT: CONSEQUENCES, AND WAYS FORWARD, FOR STATE TRIBUNALS

The High Court decided in Burns V Corbett a Tribunal could not act as a court exercising judicial capacity on constitutional matter or within the matters set out in section 75 & 76 of the Constitution. A State tribunal has no jurisdiction in matters between States, or between residents of different States, or between States Read More …

SUPREME COURT RULES VACCINE MANDATES WERE UNLAWFUL

The Supreme Court of Queensland has ruled that COVID-19 vaccine mandates imposed by the Queensland state government on emergency workers during the pandemic were unlawful under the state’s own human rights laws. On Feb. 27, the Supreme Court issued rulings on multiple lawsuits against the Queensland Police Service (QPS) and Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) over Read More …

CRANDALL v. STATE OF NEVADA.

CRANDALL v. STATE OF NEVADA. Supreme Court 73 U.S. 35 18 L.Ed. 745 6 Wall. 35 CRANDALL v. STATE OF NEVADA. December Term, 1867 ERROR to the Supreme Court of Nevada. In 1865, the legislature of Nevada enacted that ‘there shall be levied and collected a capitation tax of one dollar upon every person leaving Read More …

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED & ANOR v TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AUSTRALIA [2023] HCA 27

The High Court of Australia has found Qantas illegally sacked 1600 workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The High Court upheld two rulings made by the Federal Court, which found the outsourcing of baggage handlers, cleaners and ground staff was unlawful under section 340 of the Fair Work Act. Anyone who took “adverse action against another person for Read More …

GEORGE v ROCKETT

When a statute prescribes that there must be “reasonable grounds” for a state of mind – including suspicion and belief – it requires the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person.   HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA Mason C.J., Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey Gaudron and McHugh JJ. Read More …