LAW / Referencing for Law Students / AGLC 3rd ed
.pdf
Australian Guide to Legal Citation |
39 |
2.1.3The Commonwealth and the States and Territories
Rule Where the Commonwealth of Australia is a party, ‘Commonwealth’ should be used. Where a party is an Australian state or territory, only the name of that State or Territory should be used (for example, ‘Queensland’, not ‘State of Queensland’).
‘The’ should be omitted from such names.
Examples Wong v Commonwealth (2009) 236 CLR 573. [Not: … The Commonwealth …]
New South Wales v Amery (2006) 230 CLR 174. [Not: State of New South Wales …]
2.1.4The Crown
Rule Rex (‘the King’) and Regina (‘the Queen’) should be abbreviated to ‘R’ where the Crown is the first-named party. Where the Crown is the respondent, ‘The King’ or ‘The Queen’ (as appropriate) should be written out in full.
Examples R v Reid [2007] 1 Qd R 64.
Nydam v The Queen [1977] VR 430.
Kemp v The King (1951) 83 CLR 341.
2.1.5Governmental Entities, Foreign Governments and International Organisations
|
Rule |
|
Where a governmental entity or instrumentality, a foreign government |
|
|
|
or an international organisation is a party, its name should appear in |
|
|
|
the conventional shortened form (if any exists), rather than the full |
|
|
|
elaborate form. However, the full form should be used where this is |
|
|
|
necessary to avoid ambiguity. |
|
|
|
‘The’ should be omitted from such names. |
|
|
|
|
Cases
40 Part II — Domestic Sources
Examples BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266. [Not: … President, Councillors and Ratepayers of the Shire of Hastings …]
Papua New Guinea v Daera Guba (1973) 130 CLR 353. [Not: Administration of the Territory of Papua New Guinea …]
O’Donoghue v Ireland (2008) 234 CLR 599. [Not: … Republic of Ireland …]
European Community v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 68 IPR 539.
But: Zoeller v Federal Republic of Germany (1989) 23 FCR 282.
2.1.6Ministers and Officers of the Commonwealth, States and Territories, and Government Departments
Rule Where a Minister of the Crown or government officer is a party, their title should appear in the conventional shortened form (if any exists), rather than the full elaborate form.
Where both the title and name of a Minister or officer are included in the report, only the title should be included (and the name omitted). However, where only their name is included in the report, this should be included.
Where the jurisdiction of the Minister or officer is included in their title (but not evident in the conventional shortened form), it should not appear in full, but should appear in parentheses in an abbreviated form after their title (using the abbreviations in rule 3.1.3).
Where a secretary, under secretary or officer of a government department is a party and the name of the department appears in the case name, their position and the name of the department (separated by a comma) should be included. If the jurisdiction of the department is included in its title, it should appear in parentheses in an abbreviated form after the department name (using the abbreviations in rule 3.1.3).
‘The’ should be omitted from such titles.
Australian Guide to Legal Citation |
41 |
Examples MacCormick v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 158 CLR 622. [Not: MacCormick v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia …]
M238 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 260 (21 November 2003). [Not: …
Ruddock, The Minister for Immigration …]
Hicks v Ruddock (2007) 156 FCR 574.
Zhu v Treasurer (NSW) (2004) 218 CLR 530. [Not: Zhu v Treasurer of New South Wales …]
Houssein v Under Secretary, Department of Industrial Relations and Technology [1980] 2 NSWLR 398.
2.1.7Attorneys-General and Directors of Public Prosecutions
Rule Where a party is an Attorney-General, ‘Attorney-General’ should be used in the text and ‘A-G’ in a footnote citation.
Where a party is a Director of Public Prosecutions, ‘Director of Public Prosecutions’ should be used in the text and ‘DPP’ in a footnote citation.
Both should be followed by the abbreviated form of the relevant jurisdiction within parentheses (see rule 3.1.3), even if it is not included in the report.
‘The’ should not precede ‘A-G’ or ‘DPP’ in a citation.
Examples In Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v RHB,2 the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales reconsidered a sentence imposed for murder.
__________
16DPP (Vic) v Finn (2008) 186 A Crim R 235.
17Bradshaw v A-G (Qld) [2000] 2 Qd R 7, 13.
Cases
42 Part II — Domestic Sources
2.1.8‘Re’
Rule
Examples
Note
Procedural phrases such as ‘In re’ and ‘In the matter of ’ should be shortened to ‘Re’.
Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257. [Not: In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts …]
Re Palmer; George v McIntyre (1902) 2 SR (NSW) 200.
‘Re’ means ‘in the matter of ’ and is commonly used when a court acts in an advisory or guardianship capacity, as it does in cases involving the interpretation of wills or trusts. For example, if Re Smith were a trusts case, Smith would be the testator or settlor. Extended case names such as Roberts v Jones; Re Williams can occur where, for example, Williams left property to Jones to hold on trust for Roberts and Roberts sues Jones to enforce the will. In speech, ‘Re’ should be rendered ‘in the matter of ’.
2.1.9‘Ex parte’
Rule
Examples
Notes
‘Ex parte’ should not be abbreviated and ‘Ex’ should be capitalised.
Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (2002) 209 CLR 372.
J Boag & Son Brewing Ltd v Cascade Brewery Co Pty Ltd; Ex parte Banks Paton Australia Pty Ltd (1997) 7 Tas R 119.
R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254.
‘Ex parte’ indicates that the party to an action is acting in the absence of the other party. For example, Ex parte Wilson indicates that Wilson brought the action. Extended case names such as Ex parte Wilson; Re Ho can occur where, for example, Wilson brings an action concerning the rights of Zhang (a third party) under Ho’s will.
Australian Guide to Legal Citation |
43 |
Case names such as R v Chan; Ex parte Owen can refer to applications for prerogative writs (administrative law remedies) and contempt proceedings. In the case of a prerogative writ, the above citation would mean that Owen has made an application for a prerogative writ against Chan.
2.1.10‘ex rel’
|
|
Rule |
|
When citing a relator action, the first-named relator should always be |
|
|
|
|
included and should be introduced by the abbreviation ‘ex rel’. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example |
|
227 A-G (Vic) ex rel Dale v Commonwealth (1945) 71 CLR 237. [Not: |
|
|
|
|
A-G (Vic) (at the relation of Dale and Others) …] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note |
|
The abbreviation ‘ex rel’ stands for ‘ex relatione’, which means ‘upon |
|
|
|
|
the relation or information of’. Where a legal action is brought by the |
|
|
|
|
Attorney-General at the request of a private individual who lacks the |
|
|
|
|
necessary standing to sue in their own name, the private individual is |
|
|
|
|
termed the ‘relator’ and the case ‘the relator action’. In pre-20th |
|
|
|
|
century law reports, ‘ex rel’ ordinarily denoted that the reporter did |
|
|
|
|
not personally witness the proceedings but obtained an account |
|
|
|
|
second-hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
2.1.11‘v’
Rule A ‘v’ should generally separate the parties’ names. It should not be followed by a full stop and should be italicised.
Example K-Generation Pty Ltd v Liquor Licensing Court (2007) 99 SASR 58.
Note In speech, the ‘v’ between the parties’ names is rendered ‘and’ in a civil action and ‘against’ in a criminal action both in Australia and the United Kingdom. It is not pronounced ‘versus’ as it is in the United States of America.
Cases
44 Part II — Domestic Sources
2.1.12Admiralty Cases
Rule
Examples
Note
For admiralty cases in rem, only the name of the vessel in question should appear as the case name.
For admiralty cases in personam, the parties’ names (separated by ‘v’) followed by a semicolon and the name of the vessel at issue should appear as the case name.
‘The’ should be included in names of vessels.
The Maria Luisa [No 2] (2003) 130 FCR 12. [Not: Kent v Vessel ‘Maria Luisa’ [No 2] …]
Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd; The Great Peace [2003] QB 679.
Admiralty cases in rem are proprietary actions brought against the ship itself, and the ship (not a person) is named as the respondent. Admiralty cases in personam are actions between private parties that relate to a ship.
2.1.13Multiple Proceedings between the Same Parties
Rule For multiple proceedings under the same name, the number of the decision should be indicated in square brackets if the number appears in the case name itself.
Where there are multiple proceedings under the same name, but the case names do not (all) include numbers, it may be appropriate to give the cases descriptive short titles to differentiate them (see rule 2.1.14).
Examples Bahr v Nicolay [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 604.
Wentworth v Rogers [No 5] (1986) 6 NSWLR 534.
Kuwait Airlines Corporation v Iraqi Airways Co [Nos 4 and 5] [2002] 2 AC 883.
|
|
Australian Guide to Legal Citation |
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
The litigation commenced by Mrs Cubillo went through many stages.6 |
|
|||
|
__________ |
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
See Cubillo v Commonwealth (1999) 89 FCR 528 (‘Cubillo Strike- |
|
||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Out Application’); Cubillo v Commonwealth [No 2] (2000) 103 |
|
||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FCR 1 (‘Cubillo Trial’); Cubillo v Commonwealth (2001) 112 |
Cases |
||
|
|
FCR 455 (‘Cubillo Appeal’). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1.14 |
Abbreviated and Popular Case Names |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Rule
Examples
Where a case is commonly referred to by a popular name or is referred to more than once, the popular name or an abbreviated version of the case name may be included as a short title and used in subsequent references to the case. A popular case name may also be included as a short title to identify a case (even where the case is not referred to subsequently).
The short title should adhere to rule 1.4.3 (so should be italicised and placed within single inverted commas and parentheses following the initial citation). It may be placed in the text or in the footnotes.
In subsequent references, the short title should replace the parties’ names. Otherwise, the citation should appear as normal.
Several Justices on the Court have shown an extreme aversion to ‘[t]op-down reasoning’.1 This aversion has emerged in several different contexts. … Those arguing for judicial acknowledgment of restitution for unjust enrichment have not been immune to this criticism.4
The external affairs power has been interpreted widely in many recent decisions, such as Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1 (‘Tasmanian Dam Case’).9
__________
1See, eg, McGinty v Western Australia (1996) 186 CLR 140, 232 (McHugh J) (‘McGinty’). See also Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 516, 544–5 (Gummow J) (‘Roxborough’).
46 Part II — Domestic Sources
…
4See Roxborough (2001) 208 CLR 516, 544–5 (Gummow J), 579 (Kirby J). Gummow J relied upon the comments of McHugh J in McGinty (1996) 186 CLR 140, 232.
…
9See also Victoria v Commonwealth (1996) 187 CLR 416 (‘Industrial Relations Act Case’).
2.1.15Omitting the Case Name
Rule The case name should be omitted in a footnote citation if the case name appears in full (or as a defined short title in accordance with rule 2.1.14) in the sentence accompanying the footnote.
Examples In Thomas v Mowbray,12 the control order regime established under the schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) survived a constitutional challenge.
Toohey J, in Mabo v Queensland [No 2], also discussed fiduciary obligations.14
But: In Al-Kateb, several High Court Justices discussed the role of international law in Australian constitutional interpretation.20
_________________
12 (2007) 233 CLR 307.
14 (1992) 175 CLR 1, 204.
20 Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562.
Australian Guide to Legal Citation |
47 |
2.2Year and Volume
Rule Volumes of law report series are organised either by year or by volume number.
Where the volumes of a law report series are organised by volume number, the year in which the decision was handed down (often, but not necessarily, the year in which the case was reported) should appear in parentheses ‘( )’.
Where the volumes of a law report series are organised by year, the year of the volume in which the case is reported should appear in square brackets ‘[ ]’. If more than one volume is produced in a single year, the volume number should be included between the year and the report series abbreviation.
Examples R v Lester (2008) 190 A Crim R 468.
Sent v Andrews (2002) 6 VR 317. [Not: … (2002–03) 6 VR 317]
King v King [1974] Qd R 253.
Rowe v McCartney [1976] 2 NSWLR 72.
Notes On occasion, a law report series may change from being organised by year to volume number or vice versa. The system used for the volume in which the relevant case appears should be used.
Where a law report series organised by year contains decisions that were handed down before the year of the volume, the year of the volume (not that of the decision) should nevertheless be included. The discrepancy between the year of the volume and the year of decision may be explained discursively if it is important.
Cases
48 Part II — Domestic Sources
2.3Law Report Series
2.3.1Authorised/Unauthorised and Generalist/Specific Report Series
Rule A reported version of a case should be cited in preference to an unreported version.
Where a case appears in an ‘authorised’ report series, this series should be cited in preference to any other reported version. Where a case has not been reported in an authorised report series, an unauthorised report series should be cited.
Generalist (unauthorised) report series should be cited in preference to subject-specific (unauthorised) report series, which sometimes include extracts rather than the full decision.
If the only report of a case is a partial report and the relevant part is not extracted, the case should be cited as unreported (in accordance with rule 2.8).
Examples
Note
Balchin v Anthony (2008) 22 NTLR 52. [Not: … [2008] NTSC 2 (4 January 2008).]
Rural Press Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2003) 216 CLR 53. [Not: … (2003) 203 ALR 217.]
Mar Mina (SA) Pty Ltd v City of Marion (2008) 163 LGERA 24.
Scott v CAL No 14 Pty Ltd [No 2] (2009) 256 ALR 512. [Not: …
(2009) 52 MVR 45.]
But: Tobacco Control Coalition Inc v Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd
[2000] FCA 1004 (27 July 2000) [69], [74]. [Not: … [2000] ATPR (Digest) ¶46-205.]
Authorised reports usually indicate that they are the ‘authorised reports’ of the court in the opening pages of each volume. Judgments reproduced therein have been approved by a judge or their associate.