The Anisminic doctrine of extended jurisdictional error in New South Wales superior courts
- Publisher:
- Thomson Lawbook Co
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- Local Government Law Journal, 2007, 12 (3), pp. 164 - 182
- Issue Date:
- 2007-01
Closed Access
| Filename | Description | Size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | 2006010532.pdf | 1.24 MB |
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Closed Access
This item is closed access and not available.
In Australia, despite some intermittent enthusiasm for the Anisminic doctrine of extended jurisdictional error, most Australian superior courts continue to maintain, or at least pay lip-service to, a distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law. This has been particularly the case in New South Wales where, even since the landmark High Court of Australia case of Craig v South Australia, the State's two superior courts, the Supreme Court (together with the Court of Appeal) and the Land and Environment Court, respectively, generally decide matters before them involving jurisdictional error using the traditional doctrine of jurisdictional error, notwithstanding that Craig is increasingly, and at times incogruously, cited as authority for their conclusions.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: