Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/70824
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGava, J.en
dc.date.issued2011en
dc.identifier.citationThe Sydney Law Review, 2011; 33(2):157-176en
dc.identifier.issn0082-0512en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/70824-
dc.description.abstractDiscussion of Sir Owen Dixon’s judging to date has been superficial. Both supporters and opponents of Dixon’s method have simply asserted their positions, without providing a sustained analysis of his judgments to back up claims made about Dixon’s fidelity to a ‘strict and complete legalism’. To remedy this lack, in a series of articles the author has examined four of Dixon’s contract decisions with the aim of advancing the debate over Dixon’s strict and complete legalism by providing a detailed analysis, concentrating on his judicial method, of several of his judgments. The articles also examined Dixon’s understanding of strict and complete legalism and showed that superficial comparisons to mechanical jurisprudence misrepresented the sophisticated form of bounded creativity that was at the essence of the judicial practice of Dixon. This article will examine two other of Dixon’s contract decisions in detail and show that in these cases Dixon did not decide them in conformity with his selfdescribed judicial method. This will show that, while Dixonian strict legalism does not and cannot have the intellectual rigour of an academic discipline, it nevertheless describes a method that allows us to identify judgments that are not made in accordance with an honest best-reading of the authorities and principles of the common law.en
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityJohn Gavaen
dc.description.urihttp://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr_33/slr33_2.shtmlen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherLBC Information Servicesen
dc.rights© 2011 The University of Sydneyen
dc.titleWhen Dixon nodded: further studies of Sir Owen Dixon's contracts jurisprudenceen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.identifier.rmid0020113182en
dc.identifier.pubid27516-
pubs.library.collectionLaw publicationsen
pubs.verification-statusVerifieden
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden
Appears in Collections:Law publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
RA_hdl_70824.pdfRestricted Access265.06 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.