OPPapers.com Essay Index >> Miscellaneous >> Noarlunga Meat Case
We have many free term papers and essays on Noarlunga Meat Case. We also have a wide variety of research papers and book reports available to you for free. You can browse our collection of term papers or use our search engine.
noarlunga meat case. ... The landmark case I studied was O'SULLIVAN v. NOARLUNGA MEAT
LTD. (1954) 92 CLR 565, commonly called The Noarlunga Meat Case. ...
Submitted by xxx_ashleigh_xxx on April 10, 2006
Category: Miscellaneous
Words: 1512 | Pages: 7
Views: 100
Popularity Rank: 74,466
Average Member Grade: N/A (Add a Comment / Grade this Paper)
The High Court is the most visible, and in one sense the most important, court in Australia. This is not because of the number of cases it decides or (in non-constitutional cases) because of the effect of its orders on litigants. It is because of the consequences of its judgments, as precedents determining the result of other cases in other courts, as authoritative statements of the law, as an expression of legal policy on sensitive political or social questions.
The High Court is the primary custodian of the Constitution, as the arrangements for constitutional cases in its original and appellate jurisdiction indicate. Its function is to develop a coherent body of constitutional doctrine consistent with the text of the Constitution and, as far as possible, appropriate to the needs of the community. In its constitutional role the High Court inevitably has to decide sensitive political questions.
Throughout the twentieth century the High Court has been quite deliberate in its approach to the Federalism Debate. Federalism means a demarcation of powers and this casts upon the Court a responsibility of deciding whether legislation is within the boundaries of allotted powers. The Federalism Debate is referred to as the power struggle between the Commonwealth and the states of Australia. Since its formation, the High Court has had several notable phases, all with different approached to the Federalism Debate.
1903-1920 was known as the “intentionalist phase” of the High Court. The Court set narrow limits on the Commonwealth powers to ensure they didn\\\'t deduct from State authority. 1920-1942 marked the “legalist (literalist) phase” of the High Court. By “legalist” it is meant that the judicial emphasis was placed upon the actual literal meaning of the words rather than looking back to see what the Founders may or may not have intended. The third phase of the High Court is the “neutral period” from 1942-1970. This was an...
You must Login to view the entire paper.
If you are not a member yet, Sign Up for free!