Lloyd v Wallach [1915] HCA 60

Lloyd v Wallach [1915] HCA 60

The Court held that regulation 55 was a valid exercise of legislative power, and that a ministerial warrant reciting the Minister’s belief was sufficient justification for detention; the truth or sufficiency of the grounds for the Minister’s belief could not be examined or challenged in habeas proceedings as the power conferred required only the Minister’s satisfaction.

Parties
Appellant: Lloyd; Respondent: Wallach
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 1915
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment of Supreme Court discharged. Respondent remanded into custody.
Legal Topics
War Precautions, Regulations, Habeas Corpus, Naturalized Persons, Ministerial Warrants
Constitutional Law Administrative Law War Legislation War Precautions Regulations Habeas Corpus Naturalized Persons Ministerial Warrants

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyd

Appellant

Wallach

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether regulation 55 of the War Precautions Regulations 1915 was valid under the War Precautions Act 1914-1915
  2. 2 Whether the return to the writ of habeas corpus was sufficient when based on a ministerial warrant reciting belief of disaffection or disloyalty
  3. 3 Whether the Minister's belief and grounds for belief are examinable by the Court

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that regulation 55 was a valid exercise of legislative power, and that a ministerial warrant reciting the Minister’s belief was sufficient justification for detention; the truth or sufficiency of the grounds for the Minister’s belief could not be examined or challenged in habeas proceedings as the power conferred required only the Minister’s satisfaction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment of Supreme Court discharged. Respondent remanded into custody.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment appealed from discharged