WebTHE COMMONWEALTH v. CIGAMATIC PTY. LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA Dixon C.J., McTiernan, Kitto, Taylor, Menzies, Windeyer and Owen JJ. THE COMMONWEALTH v. CIGAMATIC PTY. LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) (1962) 108 CLR 372 2 August 1962 Constitutional Law (Cth) WebIn this case, the High Court held that the Commonwealth enjoyed a wide immunity from state law; this spawned an intense and continuing controversy about the precise extent, …

7 On Law and Justice (London, 1958); On Self …

WebENIGMATIC CASE OF PIRRIE v McFARLANE H p LEE* INTRODUCTION Pirrie v McFarlane1 remains an enigmatic case. Decided a few years after the landmark ... Webtext to the case before the judge; or, putting the point a little more broadly, the application of the text to the governance of the Commonwealth. Where there is a choice as to meaning … highcroft surgery arnold opening times

com con pt 2 Flashcards Quizlet

WebIn Uther Cigamatic, distinction is drawn between laws affecting Commonwealth executive CAPACITIES and State laws of general application regulating CROWN ACTIVITIES in the exercise of those CAPACITIES in the same MANNER as its subjects There is nothing in theMelbourne Corp principle that would suggest that the Crown/its agents have any … Although Dixon J had suggested in the Melbourne Corporation case that the States lack the power to legislate with respect to the rights and activities of the Commonwealth, } it was not until 1962 when, as Chief Justice, he declared in Commonwealth v Cigamatic Pty Ltd (In Liq): It is not a question, as it appears to me, of interpreting some positive power of the State over a given subject matter. It is not a question of making some implication in favour of the Commonw… WebThe majority of Justices accepted that s. 64 of the Judiciary Act 1903 did not apply, as the DHA was not a body that was subject to the Cigamatic doctrine. However, … highcroft surgery email address