Authority to Decide

L. Aitken
{"title":"Authority to Decide","authors":"L. Aitken","doi":"10.38127/uqlj.v40i2.5777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \nTo realise that there is no Court in Australia with unlimited jurisdiction is at one stroke to recognise the continuing importance of Justice Leeming’s standard work, and the relevance of this second edition. The ‘autochthonous expedient’, as Sir Owen Dixon named it, has much to answer for: it leads inexorably to a bifurcated system of state and federal courts, which has many toils and snares for the unwary. To compound the problem, the state courts enjoy a large amount of ‘invested’ federal jurisdiction, which means that on many occasions they exercise it without appreciating the fact that they have done so. \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":83293,"journal":{"name":"The University of Queensland law journal","volume":"113 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The University of Queensland law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v40i2.5777","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To realise that there is no Court in Australia with unlimited jurisdiction is at one stroke to recognise the continuing importance of Justice Leeming’s standard work, and the relevance of this second edition. The ‘autochthonous expedient’, as Sir Owen Dixon named it, has much to answer for: it leads inexorably to a bifurcated system of state and federal courts, which has many toils and snares for the unwary. To compound the problem, the state courts enjoy a large amount of ‘invested’ federal jurisdiction, which means that on many occasions they exercise it without appreciating the fact that they have done so.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
决定权
要认识到在澳大利亚没有法院拥有无限的管辖权,就必须立刻认识到利明法官的标准工作的持续重要性,以及这本第二版的相关性。欧文·迪克森爵士(Sir Owen Dixon)称之为“本土权宜之计”的做法有很多需要解释的地方:它不可避免地导致了一个由州法院和联邦法院组成的两分制体系,这给粗心的人带来了许多麻烦和陷阱。使问题更加复杂的是,州法院享有大量“投资”的联邦管辖权,这意味着在许多情况下,他们行使管辖权时没有意识到自己已经这样做了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Robodebt and Novel Data Technologies in the Public Sector The Territorial Scope of Australia’s Unfair Contract Terms Provisions Regulating Decisions that Lead to Loss of Life in Workplaces Lending on the Edge Substantive Equality and the Possibilities of the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1