A List of High Court Cases Worth Reading

This list is actively being developed; it is incomplete

As I read through the Commonwealth Law Reports, from Dalgarno v Hannah[1903] HCA 1 onwards, here is my list of cases that I consider worth reading. I consider a case worth reading where the case is of one of importance for the Australian legal system, where there is a particularly well written judgment, and/or where the facts or legal scenario is interesting.

Please email any cases you think I've missed.

1903

• Bond v Commonwealth [1903] HCA 2 — Rights under the Constitution cannot be taken away by Commonwealth legislation.

1904

• D'Emden v Peddar [1904] HCA 1 — implied intergovernmental immunities doctrine; first of the intergovernmental immunities line of cases;
• Tasmania v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 11 — interpretation of the Commonwealth Constitution;
• Roberts v Ahern [1904] HCA 17 — Crown immunities; acts binding the Commonwealth;
• Miles v Commercial Banking Co of Sydney [1904] HCA 54 — when the judgment/verdict of a jury can be disturbed in a civil matter;
• Peterswald v Bartley [1904] HCA 21 — Section 90 of the Constitution; what is a ‘duty’; reserve powers doctrine
• Deakin v Webb [1904] HCA 57 — affirming the implied intergovernmental immunities in D'Emden v Peddar; section 74 certificate; second of the intergovernmental immunities line of cases;
• Clough v Leahy [1904] HCA 38 — legal personality of the Commonwealth executive government
• Davis v Davis [1904] HCA 40 — adultery; funny fact scenario
• Davies v Western Australia [1904] HCA 46 — State enactments read subject to the provisions of the Constitution.

1905

• Lysaght Bros and Co Ltd v Falk [1905] HCA 7 — law of agency; effect of fraud on agency relationship; agent must act for the benefit of the principal to bind him;
• Quan Yick v Hinds [1905] HCA 10 — when imperial legislation is in force in the colonies;
• Commonwealth v Baume [1905] HCA 11 — the folly of “equitable” construction of statutes;
• Ah Yick v Leheret [1905] HCA 22 — Parliament’s power to confer federal jurisdiction;
• Brown v Lizars [1905] HCA 24 — no right of the executive to interference with the liberty of a subject except as according to law;
• R v Lindbergh; ex parte Jong Hing [1905] HCA 36 — application of habeas corpus to Chinese immigrants; the common law does not discriminate based on race;
• Tindal v Calman [1905] HCA 39 — the proper role of the court in statutory interpretation;
• Reid v Smith [1905] HCA 54 — fixture vs chattel; common law reasoning;

1906

• Enever v R [1906] HCA 3 — Liability of Crown - Wrongful arrest - Relation between peace officers and the Crown;
• Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association [1906] HCA 94 — implied intergovernmental immunities doctrine; doctrine applies to State and Commonwealth equally; third of the intergovernmental immunities line of cases;
• Brisbane Shipwrights Provident Union v Heggie [1906] HCA 4 — tortious interference; common law reasoning; distinction between intention and motive;
• Commonwealth v New South Wales [1906] HCA 16 — implied immunity of intergovernmental instrumentalities.

1907

• Baxter v Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) [1907] HCA 76 — High Court, not Privy Council, final court on inter se Constitutional limits of Commonwealth and States; intergovernmental immunities doctrine; s 74 certificates; High Court not following Privy Council judgment.

1908

• R v Barger [1908] HCA 43 — Reserved powers doctrine
• Union Label Case [1908] HCA 94 — Reserved powers doctrine

1909

• Huddart, Parker & Co v Moorehead [1909] HCA 36 — Reserved powers doctrine

1916

• Farey v Burvett [1916] HCA 36 — Reserved powers doctrine

1929

• Ex parte Nelson (No 2) [1929] HCA 14 — Dixon judgment

1931

• Attorney-General (New South Wales) v Trelhaven [1931] HCA 3 — Dixon judgment;