Minister for Interior (Cth) v Neyens [1964] HCA 71
The Child Welfare Ordinance 1957 expressly and by necessary implication displaces the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to make custody orders in respect of a child who has become a ward under the Ordinance. The Minister is the sole legal guardian during wardship, excluding court jurisdiction over custody except by appeal from the original magisterial order.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court Judgment and Order
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- ['custody of Infants' 'wardship' 'jurisdiction of Supreme Court' 'child Welfare Ordinance']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court Judgment and Order
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether Pt V of the Child Welfare Ordinance 1957 displaces the Supreme Court's power to make an order for custody of an infant who has become a ward under the Ordinance." 'Interpretation of s. 19 of the Child Welfare Ordinance relating to the guardianship of wards.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Child Welfare Ordinance 1957 expressly and by necessary implication displaces the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to make custody orders in respect of a child who has become a ward under the Ordinance. The Minister is the sole legal guardian during wardship, excluding court jurisdiction over custody except by appeal from the original magisterial order.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- ['Order of the Supreme Court set aside.' 'Application dismissed.' "Appellants to pay respondent's costs of appeal to this Court and of the application to the Supreme Court."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment