Sir Owen Dixon, strict legalism and McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorGava, J.
dc.date.issued2009
dc.description.abstractOne 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.statementofresponsibilityJohn Gava
dc.identifier.citationOxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 2009; 9(2):141-165
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/14729342.2009.11421504
dc.identifier.issn1472-9342
dc.identifier.issn1757-8469
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/58813
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherHart Publishing
dc.rightsCopyright status unknown
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2009.11421504
dc.titleSir Owen Dixon, strict legalism and McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Law publications