Waterford v Commonwealth

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Judgment Date1987
Neutral Citation[1987] HCA 25,1987-0624 HCA B
Date1987
Year1987
CourtHigh Court

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
257 cases
1 firm's commentaries
  • No Privilege to be an In-House Lawyer in the European Union
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 23 September 2010
    ...of the independence requirement set out in Australian LPP cases such as Rich v Harrington [2007] FCA 1987 and Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54. In the recent Federal Court decision in Dye v Commonwealth Securities Ltd (No 5) [2010] FCA 950 (1 September 2010), Katzman J appeared to......
3 books & journal articles
  • Disciplined for `bringing a sport into disrepute': a framework for judicial review.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 25 No. 3, December 2001
    • 1 December 2001
    ...which might be protected in tribunals to include legitimate expectations and commercial reputation. (42) Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54, 77 (Brennan J). See also Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, 356 (Mason CJ). (43) Australian Workers' Union v Bowen [No 2] (1948) 77 CLR 601, 630 (Dixon ......
  • Disqualification of Judges and Pre-Judicial Advice
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 43-2, June 2015
    • 1 June 2015
    ...so would be to undermine the clear public interest in granting confidentiality to government legal advice: see Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54, 62 (Mason and Wilson JJ). 2015 Disqualification of Judges and Pre-judicial Advice 223 __________________________________________________......
  • Judicial Review and Merits Review: Are the Boundaries Being Eroded?
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 45-4, December 2017
    • 1 December 2017
    ...AP Energy Investments Pty Ltd (2016) 103 ATR 280, 299 [57]. 83 Haritos (2015) 233 FCR 315, 383 [192], quoting Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54, 77 (Brennan J); Federal Commissioner of Taxation v AP Energy Investments Pty Ltd (2016) 103 ATR 280, 299 [57]. 84 Osland v Secretary, D e......