Lipohar v R

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Judgment Date1999
Neutral Citation[1999] HCA 65,1999-1209 HCA B
Date1999
CourtHigh Court
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
92 cases
  • John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 21 June 2000
    ...the common law to await equivalent legislative initiatives in Australia? 145 In a recent case bearing some analogies to the present, Lipohar v The Queen197, I concluded that the Court should not elaborate a new common law rule but should leave it to the several parliaments of Australia to r......
  • Barnes v Boulton
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Commissioner of Taxation v Ryan
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 3 February 2000
    ...in Ch III of the Australian Constitution. See also Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313 at 386; Lipohar v The Queen [1999] HCA 65 at [199]. 63R v Reynhoudt (1962) 107 CLR 381 at 388; Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 187 CLR 310 at 351. 64 cf In Re Samuel [......
  • Regie Nationale Des Usines Renault Sa v Zhang
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 14 March 2002
    ...more difficult by the circumstance that each of the terms ‘jurisdiction’ and ‘choice of law’ itself requires further analysis. In Lipohar v The Queen, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ said of ‘jurisdiction’ 4: ‘It is used in a variety of senses, some relating to geography, some to persons and p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 books & journal articles
  • Attributes and Attribution of State Courts — Federalism and the Kable Principle
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 40-1, March 2012
    • 1 March 2012
    ...(Federation Press, 5th ed, 2010) 651–2. 69 See, eg, Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520; Lipohar v The Queen (1999) 200 CLR 485. 42 Federal Law Review Volume 40 ____________________________________________________________________________________ C Kable principle ......
  • The Centralisation of Judicial Power within the Australian Federal System
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 42-2, June 2014
    • 1 June 2014
    ...jurisdiction’. Inste ad, a judicial system might have been created, ‘which was neither State nor Federal but simply Australian’, 99 (1999) 200 CLR 485, 505. 100 Ibid (footnotes omitted). Gleeson CJ (at 24) and Kirby J (at 552) agreed that there is one common law in Australia. See also John ......
  • Conflicts and Choice of Law within the Australian Constitutional Context
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 31-2, June 2003
    • 1 June 2003
    ...3 November 2001 at theAustralian National University, for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.1(1988) 169 CLR 41('Breavington').2(1999) 200 CLR 485 ('Lipohar').3(2000) 203 CLR 503 ('Pfeiffer').4Brian Opeskin, 'Constitutional Dimensions of Choice of Law in Australia' (1992) 3 PublicLa......
  • Federal Constitutional Influences on State Judicial Review
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 39-3, September 2011
    • 1 September 2011
    ...above n 1, 294. 79 The unitary nature of the common law was confirmed in Kirk (2010) 239 CLR 531, 581 [99] citing Lipohar v The Queen (1999) 200 CLR 485, 505 [43] (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ). On close inspection the more decisive passage in Lipohar seems to be at 505–6 [45]–[46]. 80 The ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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