High Court of Australia
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ
RONALD WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF
AND
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA & ORS DEFENDANTS
Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 23 20 June 2012 S307/2010
ORDER
The questions stated in the Amended Special Case dated 26 July 2011 be answered as follows:
Question 1
Does the plaintiff have standing to challenge:
(a) the validity of the Darling Heights Funding Agreement?
(b) the drawing of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of making payments pursuant to the Darling Heights Funding Agreement during the following financial years: (i) 2007-2008; (ii) 2008-2009; (iii) 2009-2010; (iv) 2010-2011; (v) 2011-2012?
(c) the making of payments by the Commonwealth to Scripture Union Queensland pursuant to the Darling Heights Funding Agreement during the following financial years: (i) 2007-2008; (ii) 2008-2009; (iii) 2009-2010; (iv) 2010-2011; (v) 2011-2012?
Answer
(a) Yes.
(b) Unnecessary to answer.
(c) Yes.
Question 2
If the answer to Question 1(a) is Yes, is the Darling Heights Funding Agreement invalid, in whole or in part, by reason that the Darling Heights Funding Agreement is:
(a) beyond the executive power of the Commonwealth under s 61 of the Constitution?
(b) prohibited by s 116 of the Constitution?
Answer
(a) Yes.
(b) No.
Question 3
To the extent that the answer to Question 1(b) is Yes, was or is the drawing of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of making payments under the Darling Heights Funding Agreement authorised by:
(a) the 2007-2008 Appropriation Act?
(b) the 2008-2009 Appropriation Act?
(c) the 2009-2010 Appropriation Act?
(d) the 2010-2011 Appropriation Act?
(e) the 2011-2012 Appropriation Act?
Answer
Unnecessary to answer.
Question 4
To the extent that the answer to Question 1(c) is Yes, was or is the making of the relevant payments by the Commonwealth to Scripture Union Queensland pursuant to the Darling Heights Funding Agreement unlawful by reason that the making of the payments was or is:
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate