Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/58813
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Gava, J. | - |
dc.date.issued | 2009 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 2009; 9(2):141-165 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1472-9342 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1757-8469 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2440/58813 | - |
dc.description.abstract | One of the central debates in law concerns the nature of judging and, in particular, whether judicial reasoning is in any way bounded or whether it is essentially open-ended. In Australia a particularly influential view for many years was that expressed by Sir Owen Dixon that judging should be in accord with a “strict and complete legalism”. This paper considers in detail the High Court decision of McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission, where Dixon and Fullagar JJ reconfigured the common law's treatment of mutual mistake, to see if his reasoning is in line with his self-described judicial method. This analysis provides a case study of Dixon J's fidelity to his self-proclaimed strict legalism and illustrates the creative yet bounded nature of his understanding of the judicial role. | - |
dc.description.statementofresponsibility | John Gava | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | Hart Publishing | - |
dc.rights | Copyright status unknown | - |
dc.source.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2009.11421504 | - |
dc.title | Sir Owen Dixon, strict legalism and McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission | - |
dc.type | Journal article | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/14729342.2009.11421504 | - |
pubs.publication-status | Published | - |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest Law publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.