THE DECISION IN ANISMINIC LTD V FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION

The case was brought forward to the NSW Supreme Court in 2001 whereby Judge Hulme ordered both Respondents as negligent. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of Appeal whereby the judgement was granted in favour of the Respondents. This case affirms the previous decision.

The court observed that the ‘legal meaning’, i.e. meaning the legislature is taken to have intended, may not correspond to the literal or grammatical meaning. As four justices put

The court’s decision of termination of the appellants’ employment was not totally reasonable enough to terminate employment.

It is easy to see that the legal factors involved are themselves not perfect. Since the Court is made up of human beings who are similarly imperfect, it is not implausible to suppose that the Court likewise

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

“Their present decision is equivalent to a repeal of law and the making of law. This is not adjudication, it is mere usurpation. It is the substitution of mere arbitrary will in the place of the solemn and responsible functions of an impartial judicature.”[1]

There have been many complaints and theories of how the Supreme Court has a tendency to act as a "supra-legislature" (Woll 153). It is proposed that the Supreme Court takes the

“The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;”

The Court found that Congress does not have the authority to expand the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specifically given it in Article III. The last question centers on whether the Supreme Court as the original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. The Court decided that it did not have this jurisdiction. In order to issue a writ of mandamus, the Court may only exercise appellate jurisdiction in an existing case.

Barnes, separately, had commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW. Both proceedings were transferred to the Federal Court and heard with the proceedings issued by the ACCC. The judgment on this case was delivered on February 27, 1998 six years after Australia passed a statutory code dealing with defective goods in 1992 sixty years after the verdict on the Donoghue v Stevenson’s case.

Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .

In Li CJ’s judgment in A Solicitor v Law Society of Hong Kong [2008] 2 HKC 1, he commented in paragraph 9 that the “rigid and inflexible adherence by this Court to the previous precedents may unduly inhibit the proper development of the law and may cause injustice in individual cases. The great strength of the common law lies in its capacity to develop to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the society in which it functions.” In this essay, this statement would be discussed with reference to the role of the courts and their relationship to the legislature.

For the second case Lewis v. Avery (1971) compare with our case, both are also have the unilateral mistake. But the case Lewis v. Avery cannot be voided as it cannot show the importance

Firstly, the choice of law applicable to the substance of the dispute which the parties have made can be either express or implied and if such choice took place the arbitrators have to apply it. Without any indications concerning choice of applicable law, an arbitral tribunal has to determine such law through the searching of proper

Surratt v A.G of Trinidad and Tobago - “To the extent that the answer to the present problem is doubtful, weight should be given to the judgment of Trinidad and Tobago courts. A judge sitting in a local constitutional environment, in which he has grown up and with which he is familiar, is likely to have a surer sense of what falls within the purview of the constitution and what falls beyond, than a court sitting many miles away…”