2008Sydney law reviewRequires access

An Uncommon Court: How the High Court of Australia Has Undermined Australian Federalism

James Allan, Nicholas Aroney

Open publisher page 9 citations

Abstract

The authors contend that Australia's High Court, in deciding federal distribution of powers cases over the last century, has created an end product that looks like one of A P Herbert's UNCOMMON LAW mock hypothetical cases. These were sustained parodies of common law reasoning in which each step in the fictional judge's train of thought followed plausibly from what went before. And yet from such unexceptionable starting points the conclusions reached were ridiculous. The same general sort of analysis is here applied to the High Court's federalism jurisprudence, the fit being a surprisingly good one.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The authors contend that Australia's High Court, in deciding federal distribution of powers cases over the last century, has created an end product that looks like one of A P Herbert's UNCOMMON LAW mock hypothetical cases. These were sustained parodies of common law reasoning in which each step in the fictional judge's train of thought followed plausibly from what went before. And yet from such unexceptionable starting points the conclusions reached were ridiculous. The same general sort of analysis is here applied to the High Court's federalism jurisprudence, the fit being a surprisingly good one.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 9 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The authors contend that Australia's High Court, in deciding federal distribution of powers cases over the last century, has created an end product that looks like one of A P Herbert's UNCOMMON LAW mock hypothetical cases. These were sustained parodies of common law reasoning in which each step in the fictional judge's train of thought followed plausibly from what went before. And yet from such unexceptionable starting points the conclusions reached were ridiculous. The same general sort of analysis is here applied to the High Court's federalism jurisprudence, the fit being a surprisingly good one.

Key concepts: High Court, Ridiculous, Law, Federal court, Jurisprudence, Federalism, Project commissioning, Publishing

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
An Uncommon Court: How the High Court of Australia Has Undermined Australian Federalism — Research Paper | ScholarLens