Talk:List of High Court of Australia cases

message: Please refer to my comments at the Aust noticeboard re proposals for identifying High Court cases by name and citation. Cheers, --SilasM 04:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: Proposal: That this list be divided into periods defined by the tenure of Chief Justice, rather than by decades. This would conform to the way in which most scholars of the High Court think about periods of its work. No-one talks about 'the 1980's High Court', but there is a vast literature on 'the Mason Court'. Any thoughts?  --SilasM 11:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer not. We're aiming at a broader audience here, and this would make things more confusing for people without background knowledge. I think there's a reason the US and Canada - which I'd imagine have similar issues, and are far more advanced with coverage in this area than we are - don't. Ambi 12:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. There are of course other ways of grouping such periodisation articles. --SilasM 03:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the 'Mason court' or the 'Dixon court', for example, but who talks about the 'Gavan Duffy court'? When I added this page I just followed the example of List of United States Supreme Court cases. By the way, it's probably worth splitting into decades by now, since we're getting quite a few cases added. --bainer 03:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Periodisation

message: The title of the article indicates that this is a list of all High Court cases. Yet, the introduction says this is a list of notable cases. Either the title has to be changed, or all cases have to be included.
In addition, saying notable without any definition of why a case is notable is POV and using peacock terms. --K. 10:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost none of the lists on Wikipedia are complete. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Naming conventions specifically says that lists should be titled "List of Xs" rather than "List of famous Xs" or "List of notable Xs". The cases that are currently included in the list have been picked out for some historical or legal significance, or if they have been redlinked in other articles. If you know of other cases that you think should be included, feel free to add them to the list. --bainer (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title vs. content

message: Is there a particular convention regarding the naming of cases involving the Commonwealth. Some are named XYZ v The Commonwealth and others ABC v Commonwealth. Personally I prefer "The Commonwealth" but I'd like some sort of discussion/concensus.
Also, a related issue will arise with cases that have the same name, eg, NSW v Cth appears twice already. How are we to differentiate? Shadow007 01:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Australian Guide to Legal Citation says to use "Commonwealth" instead of "The Commonwealth".  Cases with the same name can be differentiated by their citation (if people decide to include it in the article) or by their popular name in brackets, which is also accepted by the AGLC - eg, NSW v Commonwealth ("Seas and Submerged Lands Case"). Daniel (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming Cases

message: I deleted Ruddock v Vadarlis as it was decided by the Federal Court not the High Court Find bruce (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Ruddock v Vadarlis

message: I was thinking of making the list a sortable table, in the same way as the List of Federal Court of Australia cases. Its a fair bit of work, which I would get to until Dec 17 /Jan 18, but I thought I would seek input before commencing. I was thinking
Chief Justice  	Year	Case                                                                          	Area of law 	Comment
Samuel Griffith	    	Dalgarno v Hannah                                                             	Appeals     	the first case decided by the Court.
Samuel Griffith	    	Bond v Commonwealth                                                           	Constitution	priority of constitution over statute
Adrian Knox    	    	Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (Engineers' Case)	Constitution	Rejected the doctrines of implied intergovernmental immunities and reserved State powers and determined that each head of federal power should be interpreted simply on the words of the grant
Interested in your feedback. Find bruce (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. A good idea, which will make the list more accessible. However, I would retain the current sections which are divided by the Chief Justice and have a separate table within each section with the columns "Case name", "Citation", "Area(s) of Law" and "Summary". Shadow007 (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am working on this. The sortable table will contain the proposed columns as well as LawCite citation statistics Jack4576 (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has now been actioned Jack4576 (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making it a sortable table 

message: In adding Love v Commonwealth,  added 2 references and a reflist in these edits. I reverted the references & reflist with the edit summary . Bookscale then reverted that with the edit summary . I agree that a list is allowed to have references. In this case however the list is intended to be of the significant cases on which there are, or should be, a wikipedia article, or as I understand it an index to assist with navigating to cases. Despite being a recent decision, the article on Love v Commonwealth is already well referenced. No one has felt the need to add references to the previous 280 cases and either all cases need references or none of them do. In my view the list is lengthy at 281 entries and adding a further 562 references is simply going to make the list significantly longer without any real benefit. Given our differing views, this is a matter in which the input of other editors would be helpful. --Find bruce (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: : This is a response to Leo's comment within a reversion made to take this article back to its state a few months ago
:Leo there is no claim being made that Chan is the most important High Court case. The table is navigable, with LawCite citations and dates able to be used to view the cases in an order for the reader. Please do not just randomly do a massive reversion to edits that took a high amount of effort; (including adding citation details, and citation statistics) without seeking consensus first.
: The existing cases on the page were selected completely arbitrarily. There is no reason why the previous version of the page is better, other than conservatism and inertia. Please do not just randomly revert my bold edits. If you look at the page view statistics; you might also note that since my revision the page has seen a large uptick in viewership. Jack4576 (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No one, including me would claim that Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs  is the 'most important' Australian case ever. However, it is the most cited case. You might notice that before my bold edits, House v The King & Jones v Dunkel didn't even have entries. Those cases, especially house; ARE arguably the most important cases ever. I have reverted your reversion, and let us please continue this discussion before randomly deleting a whole bunch of information about citation statistics and reference numbers again. Jack4576 (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

text: You might also note LeoC12 that my edit to recreate this list into a SORTABLE TABLE. Is an action that took place after consensus was first reached on this talk page. So consensus WAS achieved first before the edits were made. Please do not randomly revert my bold edits to the state of a few months ago. Jack4576 (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random reversion