Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
JudgeGaudron,McHugh,Hayne JJ,Kirby,Callinan JJ
Judgment Date30 May 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] HCA 22,2002-0530 HCA A
CourtHigh Court
Docket NumberS43/2001
Date30 May 2002
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
101 cases
  • Fitzwood Pty Ltd v Unique Goal Pty Ltd(in Liq)
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • Invalid date
  • Davison v Queensland
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 17 May 2006
    ...[2003] QSC 463. 31 [2004] QCA 461 at [21] per de Jersey CJ. 32Gillam v State of Queensland [2004] 2 Qd R 251 at 258 [23]. 33Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478 at 503–504 [70] per Callinan J and myself; Neat Domestic Trading v AWB Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 277 at 300 [66]. 34 [2005......
  • Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • Invalid date
  • North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Ltd v Northern Territory
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 11 November 2015
    ...to appear and/or infringement notice; or bringing the person before a justice or court under s 137. 47 Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478 at 504 [70]; [2002] HCA 22. See also R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex parte Spath Holme Ltd [20......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Can Parliament Confer Plenary Executive Power? the Limitations Imposed by Sections 51 and 52 of the Australian Consitution
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 44-2, June 2016
    • 1 June 2016
    ...which the rule of law is protected by the Constitution, and perhaps even, the meaning of law. Furthermore, it is not clear that the 4 (2002) 209 CLR 478, 504 [70]. Note, though this is expressed in g eneral terms, the case itself was concerned with the possibility of unlimited judicial (as ......
  • Some Australian reflections on Roncarelli v. Duplessis.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 55 No. 3, September 2010
    • 1 September 2010
    ...Ltd., Kirby J. thought that no Australian parliament could legislate for "[a]bsolute discretions" because they are "a form of tyranny" ([2002] HCA 22, 209 C.L.R. 478 at para. (35) But Barwick C.J. protected a taxi owner's licence by treating it as a species of property: Banks v. Transport R......
  • Three Law Deans — and what they Teach of Deanship
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 42-3, September 2014
    • 1 September 2014
    ...and the Law: The State of the Australian Political System’ (2005) 43 Law Society Journal 68, 60. 26 Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478, 503-4 [70] per Kirby and Callinan JJ. ______________________________________________________________________ 2014 Three Law Deans 597 ____......
  • The Entrenched Minimum Provision of Judicial Review and the Limits of ‘Law’
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 45-4, December 2017
    • 1 December 2017
    ...Zines’s The High Court and the Constitution (Federation Press, 6th ed, 2015) 202–7. 97 See, eg, Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478, 503–4. 98 Recall the discussion in Section II. See also Crawford, ‘Can Parliament Confer Plenary Executive Power? The Limitations Imposed by S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT