Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]
In Re The Navigation Act 1912-1920
| Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts | |
|---|---|
| |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | In Re The Judiciary Act 1903-1920 In Re The Navigation Act 1912-1920 |
| Decided | 16 May 1921 |
| Citations | |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting |
|
| Case opinions | |
| |
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]
But we can find nothing in Chapter III of the Constitution to lend colour to the view that parliament can confer power or jurisdiction upon the High Court to determine abstract questions of law without the right or duty of any body or person being involved.
On the issue of what constituted a matter they said:[6][7][8]
In our opinion there can be no matter within the meaning of s 76 of the Constitution unless there is some immediate right, duty or liability to be established by the determination of the Court.
See also
- Hayburn's Case (1792) and Muskrat v. United States (1911), similar rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States