(Australia) The court was concerned to interpret the phrase ‘arising under any laws made by the Parliament’
Austlii Constitutional Law (Cth) – Privy Council – Appeal from State Supreme Court invested with federal jurisdiction – Matter arising under law made by Common- Commonwealth Parliament – Raised by defence – Whether court exercising concurrent State and federal jurisdiction – The Constitution (63 and 64 Vict. c. 12), s. 76 (ii.) – Judiciary Act 1901-1968 (Cth), ss. 39, 40.
Courts – Ouster of jurisdiction – Public policy – Proceedings for divorce – Agreement between husband and wife concerning maintenance – Whether invalid – Whether invalidity derived from common law or statute – Matrimonial Causes Act 1959-1966 (Cth).
Matrimonial Causes – Agreement between husband and wife concerning maintenance – Whether enforceable – Whether attempt to oust jurisdiction of court – Matrimonial Causes Act 1959-1966 (Cth), ss. 5, 8, 23 (2) (3), 87 (1) (k).
Judges:
Justice Windeyer
Citations:
(1971) 124 CLR 367, [1971] HCA 39
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Cadbury-Schweppes Pty Ltd And Others v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd PC 13-Oct-1980
(New South Wales) The plaintiff had launched and advertised a soft drink. A year later, the defendant launched a similar product using similar names, styles and advertising, but then registered trade marks. The plaintiff sought damages, and for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate, Constitutional
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.180901
