Talk:List of High Court of Australia cases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is related to the WikiProject Australian law, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of Australian law. For guidelines see the project page or the Contributing FAQ. You can discuss the project at its talk page or see a list of open tasks here.

Contents 1 Citation 2 Periodisation 3 Title vs. content 4 Naming Cases 5 Missing cases

[edit] Citation

Please refer to my comments at the Aust noticeboard re proposals for identifying High Court cases by name and citation. Cheers, --SilasM 04:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Periodisation

Proposal: That this list be divided into periods defined by the tenure of Chief Justice, rather than by decades. This would conform to the way in which most scholars of the High Court think about periods of its work. No-one talks about 'the 1980's High Court', but there is a vast literature on 'the Mason Court'. Any thoughts? --SilasM 11:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer not. We're aiming at a broader audience here, and this would make things more confusing for people without background knowledge. I think there's a reason the US and Canada - which I'd imagine have similar issues, and are far more advanced with coverage in this area than we are - don't. Ambi 12:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. There are of course other ways of grouping such periodisation articles. --SilasM 03:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the 'Mason court' or the 'Dixon court', for example, but who talks about the 'Gavan Duffy court'? When I added this page I just followed the example of List of United States Supreme Court cases. By the way, it's probably worth splitting into decades by now, since we're getting quite a few cases added. --bainer 03:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title vs. content

The title of the article indicates that this is a list of all High Court cases. Yet, the introduction says this is a list of notable cases. Either the title has to be changed, or all cases have to be included.

In addition, saying notable without any definition of why a case is notable is POV and using peacock terms. --K. 10:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Almost none of the lists on Wikipedia are complete. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Naming conventions specifically says that lists should be titled "List of Xs" rather than "List of famous Xs" or "List of notable Xs". The cases that are currently included in the list have been picked out for some historical or legal significance, or if they have been redlinked in other articles. If you know of other cases that you think should be included, feel free to add them to the list. --bainer (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Cases

Is there a particular convention regarding the naming of cases involving the Commonwealth. Some are named XYZ v The Commonwealth and others ABC v Commonwealth. Personally I prefer "The Commonwealth" but I'd like some sort of discussion/concensus.

Also, a related issue will arise with cases that have the same name, eg, NSW v Cth appears twice already. How are we to differentiate? Shadow007 01:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing cases

I noticed that the dogs case was missing from the list. I don't know enough about law to write one line on the case but it seems that it is notable enough to have its own wikipedia article. Was very disapointed that I couldn't find one.