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