High Court of Australia

So, you know, the famous legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin had a distinction between concept and conception.

The Australian High Court has rendered that as the difference between denotation and connotation.

So the meaning of words doesn't change, but what comes in and out of what You know, those words mean changes with the internet and the smartphone, et cetera.

And Judge Rodham, you gave some examples of search and seizure, which I think are very much in that vein.

So what about Mabo and the common law, Nick? Because in the United States, federal judges such as Judge Oldham do not decide the common law.

There is this tiny little interstitial part of the federal common law that is so boring we would... send you to sleep.

But the Australian High Court plays a very significant role in the development of the common law and many of our questions here have referenced Love or Mabo and want to understand the difference between the kind of debate we're having tonight about the text of a written constitution and court's role in relation to the development of the common law.

I take it, Nick, that in relation to the common law, you would be somewhere between an originalist and Justice Kirby on living... sort of approaches where you would embrace some more incremental development because parliament can override it.

Three years later, she was called to the Bar and notably in 1972 was the first woman appointed to the Council of New South Wales Bar.

She was also the first woman appointed to the High Court and she held that position for 16 years until her retirement in 2003.

She was described as a trailblazer and a pioneer by her colleagues and she was one of the deciding votes in the landmark case of Mabo v Queensland.

Since the news of her passing, there's been many who took to social media to voice their sympathies and I've certainly seen a lot of posts on social media and LinkedIn about her.

The other jurist who has passed this month is High Court Justice William Gummo.

From 1986 until his appointment in the High Court in 1995, he served as a Justice of the Federal Court of Australia.

And in 1997, he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia for his service to the law.

Aside from his contribution to the law, he was making significant contributions to legal education for a number of years as a property and equity lecturer at the University of Sydney.

And the weirdest part is hardly anyone seems to know about it.

It involved a tiny community in the middle of nowhere, a farewell at a local pub, a guy everyone thought they knew, and it would also see a series of decisions that would eventually be argued all the way to the High Court of Australia.

But before we get to any of that, Camo, I need to take you to the place where it happened because you've heard of this place.

I've been to this place.

serious injury was possible.

Or whether he needed to understand that it was probable.

That question eventually goes all the way to the High Court of Australia and in 1985 the High Court rules that for murder on this basis the person must know death or grievous bodily harm is a probable consequence of what they're doing.

That seems so stupid to me.

The next Australia question is...

What landmark decision in 1992 of the High Court of Australia recognized the existence of native title in Australia, solidifying that Australia was not terra nullius, land belonging to no one, at the time of European settlement?

The claim was bought by a gentleman named Eddie Mabo, and the High Court decision was simply termed the Mabo decision.

Mabo is correct, or Mabo v. Queensland, if you wanted to get esoteric with it.

It's called if they give you leave.

And I think they were cowardly, the High Court of Australia.

They just thought, well, we just won't hear this appeal.

And so she never gets to bring the case before the judges of the top court.

Yeah, I do.

So for those of us who've been curious about the progress of the case of Coldwell and Coldwell, on the 10th of September this year, the High Court of Australia refused special leave to appeal the full court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia's decision.

So as it currently stands, the full court's decision continues to apply.

So if our viewers have any current clients or any cases that deal with trusts or deal regularly with trusts and intergenerational succession planning, now is a very good time to revisit the full court's decision.

And look, in the end, there is a reason why voters are turning off the major parties, and that is being shown in the polls.

Now, last week, the High Court of Australia denied Giggle for Girls app founder Sal Grover special leave to appeal in Giggle versus Tickle.

It means there are no more legal avenues for Sal in this case, and without legislation, sex is not purely biological.

She has this editorial.