Abstract
The principle of legal coherence and the role of judicial activism are active but controversial topics in in Australian common law. Usually, the application of the principle of legal coherence lead to a different award compared to judicial activism. Both of them have contradiction and restrict mutually, which have their own implications but safeguard the judicial system to develop cautiously. So I would like to discuss the benefits and limitations of application of legal coherence and judicial activism by examples of HCA cases.
Highlights
The principle of legal coherence and the role of judicial activism are active but controversial topics in in Australian common law
Legal coherence seemed to stand on the opposite side of judicial activism because they will lead to the different result in the same case with totally contrary reasons
Australian common law system was developed from the England, because Australia was a Britain colony for a long time after 1770
Summary
The principle of legal coherence and the role of judicial activism are active but controversial topics in in Australian common law. They are so important that they can be relied on by the High Court in statutory and constitutional interpretation; they even could be the important reference or basis of the judgements. This article is intended to discuss the benefits and limitations of application of legal coherence and judicial activism by examples of HCA cases. In the Part IV, I will try to discuss the future development trend of the principle of legal coherence and judicial activism in Australian common law and provide my recommendations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
