NILE V. WOOD AND ANOTHER

NILE V. WOOD AND ANOTHER

The court must adjourn proceedings as s.78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 prohibits proceeding further unless the required notices to the Attorneys-General have been given and a reasonable time has elapsed for possible intervention.

Parties
Petitioner: Nile; First Respondent: Wood
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Petition / Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
adjourned
Legal Topics
Interpretation of S.44 of the Constitution, Operation of S.78 B of the Judiciary Act 1903
Constitutional Law Interpretation of S.44 of the Constitution Operation of S.78 B of the Judiciary Act 1903

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nile

Petitioner

Wood

First Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition / Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition raises a 'matter' arising under the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether s.78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 requires adjournment for notification to Attorneys-General
  3. 3 Whether the petition should be dismissed or struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The court must adjourn proceedings as s.78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 prohibits proceeding further unless the required notices to the Attorneys-General have been given and a reasonable time has elapsed for possible intervention.

Court Disposition

adjourned

Orders

  • The proceedings are adjourned to a date to be fixed to permit notice to be given to the Attorneys-General and a reasonable time for intervention.
  • The matter may be brought on with 7 days' written notice by any party or Attorney-General to all other parties, interested Attorneys-General, and the Registrar.