JSB171 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Isaac Isaacs, Owen Dixon, Ally Financial

155 views4 pages
School
Department
Course
Professor

Document Summary

When a law of a state is inconsistent with a law of the commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. There is no need to rely on s 109 if: cth law invalid no head of power; or. State law invalid relates to an exclusive commonwealth power (eg, s 90) Definition of a law: where a state law generally on some other topic happens to collide with a commonwealth law passed under an exclusive power, s 109 will still be relevant: r v brisbane licensing. Court; ex parte daniell (federal electoral law state votes cannot take place on same day as federal votes conflicting state provision of no significance: common law automatically abrogated by any valid statute anyway: felton v mulligan (1971) 124 clr 367 at 370 per walsh j. = acts of the state or federal parliament: engineers" case (1920) 28 clr 129 at 155.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents