Search

Copy specific notes

Photocopied pages contains small markings in pen with various case precedents and laws being highlighted, including: [pp. 14 – 20]; [p. 25] Commonwealth v Kregliner & Fernau Ltd. and Bardsley (1926) 37 C.L.R.; [p. 26] A.-G for Queensland (Ex rel. Goldsborough, Mort & Co. Ltd.) v. A.-G for CTH (1915) 20 C.L.R. (1915) 20 C.L.R. 148; [p. 28] R. v. Foster; Ex parte Eastern and Australian Steamship Co. Ltd. 103 C.L.R. 256; [p. 29] “The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction under the Offences Against the Person Act 1828 (Imp.) s. 22 to try cases of bigamy where the second marriage has taken place outside the State. R. v. Hilaire (1903) 3 S.R. (N.S.W.) 228; [p. 45] McCawley v. The King (1920) A.C. 691; [p. 57] Spratt v. Hermes (1965) 39 A.L.J.R. 323. (H.C.); [p. 59] R. v. Barger; Commonwealth v Mackay (1908) 6 C.L.R. 41; [p. 64] Fairfax v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1965) 39 A.L.J.R. 308. (H.C); [p. 65] R v. Barger; Commonwealth v McKay (1908) 6 C.L.R. 41; [p. 66] Fairfax v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1965) 39 A.L.J.R. 308; [p. 71] Logan Downs Pty. Ltd v. Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) 112 C.L.R. 177; [p. 81] written in pencil: “take in Airlines from 166”; [p. 83] “Position of the States in general – The correct approach to questions of validity of Commonwealth legislation and of inconsistency between Commonwealth and State legislation, namely that the extent of the Commonwealth power is to be found in the language in which the power has been granted to the Commonwealth by the Constitution without attempting to restrain that construction because of the effect it would have on State power, considered. Airlines of New South Wales Pty. Ltd. v. New South Wales 38 A. L. J. R. 388.”; [p. 97] R v Kidman 20 C.L.R. 425; Spratt v Hermes (1965) 39 A.L.J.R. 368. (H.C.).