Whether to Suffer the Slings and Arrows or to Take Arms: The Role of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in Judicial Review

1987 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-37
Author(s):  
Leo Grey ◽  
Richard Phillipps
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
High Court

In recent years, a number of decisions made by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal have been challenged in the Federal Court and the High Court. Many of these challenges have concerned procedural issues arising in public inquiries. Others have attacked final decisions made by the Tribunal at the end of an inquiry. Still others have tried to limit the scope of the Tribunal's powers to regulate programs.

Part IV Practice and Process, Ch.19 Authority of the High Court of Australia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walker Kristen
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Legislative Action ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
Institutional Features ◽  
High Court Of Australia

This chapter considers both the foundations for, and the content of, the High Court's authority in Australia. It focuses principally on the current authority of the High Court, but with reference to some aspects of its history. The chapter first explains the Court's constitutional status as Australia's apex court, performing the role of both constitutional court and ultimate appellate court for both federal and State matters. It next outlines the institutional features of the Court that underpin its authority, in particular its composition and independence. The chapter then examines the Court's authority to enforce constitutional limits through judicial review of legislative action. Lastly, the chapter considers the Court's authority to review executive action and the constitutional foundation for that role.

Constitutional Adjudication and Constitutional Politics

2020 ◽  
pp. 34-66
Author(s):  
Yvonne Tew
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Politics ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Challenging Environment ◽  
Federal Statute ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication

This chapter explores the role of courts and how judicial review operates in practice within the wider political context of Asian states historically dominated by consolidated political power. Judiciaries in Malaysia and Singapore are empowered by their written constitutions to invalidate legislation and executive actions for rights violations. Yet these Asian courts have traditionally adopted an insular, rigidly formalistic approach toward constitutional review, marked by extensive deference to the political branches, stridently rejecting notions of implied constitutional principles or basic structures. This chapter consider why. Constitutional adjudication in practice is inextricably bound to constitutional politics. Courts facing a dominant political party operate within a challenging environment for exercising strong judicial review. In the 1980s, the government’s aggressive backlash to judicial decisions with which it disagreed resulted in constitutional crises in Malaysia and Singapore. Chastened, the courts retreated to a subdued position toward constitutional review. Over the next two decades the Malaysian apex court refrained from invalidating any federal statute, while its Singaporean counterpart has not once struck down any law. Recent displays of assertiveness by the Malaysian Federal Court, however, show signs of a reinvigorated judiciary. The chapter tells the story of the courts’ rise, fall, and uneven journey toward constitutional redemption in these Asian democracies.

Excessive Data Collection as a Form of Anticompetitive Conduct: The German Facebook Case

2021 ◽  
pp. 0003603X2199702
Author(s):  
Anne C. Witt
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Federal Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Abuse Of Dominance

In a high-profile decision of February 6, 2019, the German Federal Cartel Office prohibited Facebook’s data collection policy as an abuse of dominance for infringing its users’ constitutional right to privacy. The case triggered a remarkable interinstitutional dispute between the key players in German competition law. Conflicting rulings by the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court and the German Federal Court of Justice further illustrate how deeply divided the antitrust community is on the role of competition law in regulating excessive data collection and other novel types of harm caused by dominant digital platforms. This contribution discusses the original prohibition decision, the ensuing court orders, and legislative reform proposals in the broader context of European Union and U.S. competition law.

WHAT ARE CONSTITUTIONS, AND WHAT SHOULD (AND CAN) THEY DO?

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry Alexander
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
Principal Function ◽  
Fundamental Law

AbstractA constitution is, as Article VI of the United States Constitution declares, the fundamental law of the land, supreme as a legal matter over any other nonconstitutional law. But that almost banal statement raises a number of theoretically vexed issues. What is law? How is constitutional law to be distinguished from nonconstitutional law? How do morality and moral rights fit into the picture? And what are the implications of the answers to these questions for such questions as how and by whom should constitutions be interpreted? These are the issues that I shall address.Alexander proceeds as follows: In section I he takes up law's principal function of settling controversies over what we are morally obligated to do. In section II he then relate law's settlement function to the role of constitutional law. In particular, he discusses how constitutional law is distinguished from ordinary law, and he also discusses the role of constitutions in establishing basic governmental structures and enforcing certain moral rights. In section III he addresses the topic of constitutional interpretation, and in section IV the topic of judicial review. Finally, in section V, he discusses constitutional change, both change that occurs through a constitution's own rules for amendments and change that is the product of constitutional misinterpretations and revolutions.

Equity and certainty in contract law

Acta Juridica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 141-176
Author(s):  
F Brand
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Contractual Relationships ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Do So

The role of abstract values such as equity and fairness in our law of contract has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Appeal took the position that these values do not constitute self-standing grounds for interfering with contractual relationships. Despite this being consistently maintained by the SCA in a number of cases, some High Court judges deviated from this position on the basis that they were permitted to do so by some minority judgments and obiter dicta in the Constitutional Court. The uncertainty thus created has fortunately now been removed by the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Beadica v The Trustees for the Time being of the Oregon Trust.

The Role of Courts in Rifted Democracies

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Gavison
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Harsh Criticism

A discussion of the role of courts in Israel today demands some introductory remarks. The Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court enjoy great acclaim and respect within Israel and abroad, but have recently come under attack from a variety of sources. These attacks are often confused, and many of them are clearly motivated by narrow partisan interests and an inherent objection to the rule of law and judicial review. But these motives do not necessarily weaken the dangers which the attacks pose to the legitimacy of the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, in Israel's public life. The fact that in some sectors extremely harsh criticism of the court is seen to be an electoral boost, testifies to the serious and dangerous nature of the threat. This situation creates a dilemma for those who want a strong and independent judiciary, believing it is essential for freedom and democracy, but who also believe that, during the last two decades, the courts have transgressed limits they should respect. The dilemma becomes especially acute when the political echo sounds out in one's criticism, and when one is part of the group that believes that the legal and the judicial systems have made some contribution to the prevalence of these hyperbolic and dangerous attacks, as I am.

scholarly journals The Narrative Model of Constitutional Implications: A Defence of Roach v Electoral Commissioner

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Crowe
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
High Court ◽  
Fictional Narratives ◽  
Narrative Model ◽  
Way Of Thinking ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

The role of implications in Australian constitutional law has long been debated. Jeffrey Goldsworthy has argued in a series of influential publications that legitimate constitutional implications must be derived in some way from authorial intentions. I call this the intentionalist model of constitutional implications. The intentionalist model has yielded a sceptical response to several recent High Court decisions, including the ruling in Roach v Electoral Commissioner that the Constitution enshrines an implied conditional guarantee of universal franchise. This article outlines an alternative way of thinking about constitutional implications, which I call the narrative model. I argue that at least some constitutional implications are best understood as arising from historically extended narratives about the relationship of the constitutional text to wider social practices and institutions. The article begins by discussing the limitations of the intentionalist model. It then considers the role of descriptive and normative implications in both factual and fictional narratives, before applying this analysis to the Australian Constitution. I argue that the narrative model offers a plausible basis for the High Court’s reasoning in Roach v Electoral Commissioner.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document