Re A (children) (conjoined twins: surgical separation) 2 WLR 480; [2000] 3 FCR 577 (CA (Civ Div) 22 Sept 2000)
(2001)
8
0005528012
See reference 7: 488
9
0005621462
See reference 7: 590
10
0005591831
AC 789 (HL)
(1993)
11
0005521038
See reference 7: 519
12
0005521222
See reference 7: 537
13
0005564448
Pro-Life Alliance v Secretary of Health (High Court 26 Jan application for judicial review, Sullivan J)
(2001)
14
0005580713
The appeal was first heard on 15 April 1996: Superclinics Australia Pty Ltd v CES & Ors S141/1995. The Australian Episcopal Conference and the Australian Catholic Health Care Association sought leave to appear as September Ultimately, the appeal did not proceed
(1996)
15
77951755517
The Australian Catholic Health Care Association and the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference were only two of the parties to be granted amicus status. The Abortion Providers' Federation was also granted leave curiae and the Women's Electoral Lobby gave informal notice of a similar application but did not proceed with it. Hon Justice Susan Kenny. Interveners and amici curiae in the High Court. at 164
Re The Honourable Justice Sundberg; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference & Anor (C21/)
(2000)
20
0005601491
The Queen on the application of Bruno Quintavalle on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance v Secretary of State for Health. High Court Co/4095/2000, QBD, Admin ct, 15 Nov (Crane J)
(2001)
21
0005615321
Even if the amicus is required to pay costs, those will be only "party-party" costs; the "solicitor-client" costs to be paid by the parties will be higher and even a winning party must pay the difference costs
22
0005521223
editor in chief [3rd ed]. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 420; Grice v The Queen 11 Dominion Law Reports (2d) 699 at 702 (Ont Sup Court, Ferguson J)
"[That] is to say they neither asserted there is no inconsistency nor conceded an inconsistency"
McBain v State of Victoria FCA 1009 (28 July 2000). para 3
(2000)
35
0005520704
Similarly, in the appeal, Re The Honourable Justice Sundberg; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference & Anor (C21/), the church's arguments are that the Commonwealth does not have power to legislate the Sex Discrimination Act; that Sundberg J erred in not considering the "best interests" of the unborn child, and that his interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act was inconsistent with the constitutional power enacted, etc. These are all legal arguments
(2000)
* 이 정보는 Elsevier사의 SCOPUS DB에서 KISTI가 분석하여 추출한 것입니다.