Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
CourtHigh Court
JudgeHayne JJ,Kirby,McHugh,Gaudron
Date30 May 2002
Docket NumberS43/2001
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
106 cases
  • Fitzwood Pty Ltd v Unique Goal Pty Ltd(in Liq)
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • Invalid date
  • Michaels v Commonwealth
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 1 d4 Dezembro d4 2011
    ...order which affects the final result can be challenged in an appeal against final judgment 34. As the majority noted in Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd 35, there may be some limits to that general rule but it was not necessary in that case, and is not now necessary, to decide what those ......
  • Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v B
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 29 d4 Abril d4 2004
    ...131 Reasons of Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ at [64]. 132 cf DJL v Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226 at 259 [80]. 133 cf Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478 at 504–507 134 Reasons of Callinan J at [195]. 135 Reasons of Gleeson CJ and McHugh J at [24]–[46]; reasons of Gummow......
  • 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 Nbr. 44-2, June 2016
    • 1 d3 Junho d3 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 Nbr. 3, September 2010
    • 1 d3 Setembro d3 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 Nbr. 42-3, September 2014
    • 1 d1 Setembro d1 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 Nbr. 45-4, December 2017
    • 1 d5 Dezembro d5 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