Federal Parliament Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

federal Parliament - Essay ExampleThe fair play made by the courts, use precedent, as opposed to those made by parliament (Statute law), is c all in alled the Common Law. The Common Law is suit-based and has a vertical doctrine of precedent. It is adversarial rather than inquisitorial. The adversarial system of law relies on the skill of the different advocates representing their partys positions and not on or so neutral party, usually the judge, trying to ascertain the truth of the case. Judges in an adversarial system tend to be more interested in ensuring the fair play of fundamental justice. The doctrine of precedent governs the case law system.Once a case is decided, subsequent similar cases are to be decided on the principles/rules genuine in the earlier decision. The Common Law system of precedent is hierarchical lower courts are adjoin to follow the principles decided by higher courts. Once a higher court decides a case, it becomes a binding authority on the lower cou rts. Under Australias common law system, the High Court of Australia and the national Court of Australia have the authority to interpret constitutional provisions. Judicial power is vested in a national Supreme Court which is also called the High Court of Australia. ... Judicial power is vested in a Federal Supreme Court which is also called the High Court of Australia. The High Court has jurisdiction over matters arising under the Constitution, federal laws, treaties, foreign affairs (Sections 75-78). The High Court is also the top appellate court in Australia, and hears appeals from some(prenominal) other federal court, state Supreme Courts, and the Inter-State Commission only on questions of law.Land, as we all know is a limited resource and plays a vital role in the development of any nation. If a country has to expand its economy, it has to think of changing its land use pattern. The vast countryside holds tremendous capability for growth and industrialisation. A problem p eculiar to Australia is the occupation and subsequent ownership of land by the native Australian groups. Previous cases related to land disputes should shed some light on the outcome of change initiatives interpreted up by the government. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (commonly known as Mabo) was a landmark Australian court case which was decided by the High Court of Australia on June 3, 1992. The effective result of the judgement was to make conflicting the declaration of terra nullius, or land belonging to no-one which had been taken to occur from the commencement British colonisation in 1788, and to recognise a form of native title. Although Mabo was litigated within the legal context of property law, the decisions clearly had frequently wider implications which have still to be determined1. 1. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Queensland_(No_2) The action which brought about the decision had been led by Eddie Mabo, David Passi and