Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257 is a landmark judgment of the High Court of Australia. The matter related to what is a legal matter and the High Court's ability to issue opinion outside a case.Helen Irving* "Advisory Opinions, The Rule Of Law, And The Separation Of Powers", Macquarie Law Journal (2004) Vol 4 105John M. Williams, "Advisory Opinions: 'A Well-Covered Harbour'", Bond Law Review volume 22 | Issue 3 Article 13 p. 169.
Background The Attorney-General of Victoria, raised an objection that section 88 of the Judiciary Act 1903 was beyond the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament. Re Judiciary Act 1903 and Navigation Act 1912 (1921) 29 CLR 257 at 1
Finding The court found that the High Court could not issue legal opinions unattached to a specific case. The joint majority judgment stated:Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257 at 266-267.Justice RS French, Perspectives on Declaratory Relief.
On the issue of what constituted a matter they said: Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257 at 265.Margaret Kelly, Administrative Law, Pearson Law Briefs. P36Leslie Zines, Cowen and Zines's Federal Jurisdiction in Australia p. 16.
See also Hayburn's Case (1792) and Muskrat v. United States (1911), similar rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States
References
External links