Marshall v Director General
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Judge | Gleeson CJ,Gummow,Kirby,Callinan JJ,Gaudron J,McHugh J,Hayne J |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | 2001-0621 HCA B,[2001] HCA 37 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | B52/2000 |
| Date | 21 June 2001 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
54 cases
-
The Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919, the Property Values (Arbitrations and Appeals) Act 1960, the Arbitration Acts 1954 and 1980, the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts 1963 to 1993, the Local Government (No.2) Act 1960, the Housing Act 1966, the Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Acts 1974 to 1993, the Fingal County Council Northern Motorway (Airport to Balbriggan Bypass) Scheme 1995, and the Confirmation Order of the Minister for the Environment dated 30 March 1998: Representatives of Terence Chadwick Deceased and Sheelagh Davis Goff v Fingal County Council
...follow the reasoning of the High Court of Australia in a recent case namely Marshall v. The Director General, Department of Transport [2001] H.C.A. 37, (21 stJune, 2001), in which all of the Judges of the High Court of Australia rejected the authority of the Edwards case preferring instead ......
-
Terence Chadwick (Deceased) and Sheelagh Davis Goff v Fingal County Council
...invitation of the appellants to prefer the Australian High Court decision in Marshall v. The Director General, Department of Transport [2001] H.C.A. 37 (hereinafter 14 " Marshall'). Consequently, he held that the arbitrator had been correct to confine the right of the appellants to claim co......
-
Dp v Commonwealth Central Authority
...the rule in Blatch v Archer143 and referred to recently in this Court in Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council144 and Marshall v Director-General, Department of Transport145, that all evidence is to be weighed and assessed by courts having regard to the capacities of the parties to adduce it......
-
Cumerlong Holdings Pty Ltd v Dalcross Properties Pty Ltd
...if it took place, did not cause the total destruction of the restrictive covenant, but it affected it adversely. 33 In Marshall v Director General, Department of Transport Gaudron J (Hayne J concurring) said 16: ‘Although the rule that legislative provisions are to be construed according to......
Get Started for Free
2 firm's commentaries
-
Compensation payable to reserve trusts: The first decision on Section 106A of the Crown Lands Act 1989 (NSW)
...Water Corporation (2001) 113 LGERA 246 at [22], [56]-[57], [65]-[67], [77]-[78]. 6Marshall v Director-General Department of Transport (2001) 205 CLR 603 at [38]; Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Heywood (2002) 54 NSWLR 289 at [20]-[21]; George D Angus Pty Ltd v Health Admini......
-
The brewing controversy in Australia surrounding the application of the s 553C set-off defence to unfair preference claims
...Pty Ltd v. Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (2008) 233 CLR 259 which applied Marshall v. Director-General, Department of Transport (2001) 205 CLR 603 at 632-633 [62].) Unable to reach this conclusion, the Court rejected the first As to the second argument, subject to one exception, the Co......
1 books & journal articles
-
Statutory Misinterpretation: Rash Holding in Brash Holdings
...Commission (2010) 240 CLR 409, 420–1 [32] (French CJ, Gummow, Crennan and Bell JJ); Marshall v Director General Department of Transport (2001) 205 CLR 603, 623 (Gaudron J); Pearce and Geddes, above n 16, 231 [5.22]. 98 Beec h v Building Appeals Board [2005] VSC 231 (30 June 2005) [61] (Harg......