Talk:List of High Court of Australia cases

Citation
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)

Periodisation
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)
 * 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)
 * Fair enough. There are of course other ways of grouping such periodisation articles. --SilasM 03:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)

The question of periodisation appears to be settled. In case the issue arises again, I note that the same approach was adopted in, an approach endorsed with some caution by Sir Anthony Mason in the foreword & by Chief Justice French I have summarised those observations at the start of the section on the High Court article. I don't think it is necessary to repeat them at the start of this list though. Find bruce (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Title vs. content
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)


 * 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)

Naming Cases
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)


 * 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)

Missing cases
I noticed that the dogs case was missing from the list. I don't know enough about law to write one line on the case but it seems that it is notable enough to have its own wikipedia article. Was very disapointed that I couldn't find one.

Ruddock v Vadarlis
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)

Making it a sortable table
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

Interested in your feedback. Find bruce (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * This has now been actioned Jack4576 (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate lists of cases
Jack4576 has added a duplicate list of 150 cases by citation frequency, which made a mess of the page with a table & a list. I am not sure that the information is useful & note that it will need to be regularly updated to stay current. If the information is useful, it should be done either as a separate article or by converting the current list to a table form as I suggest above, with a column for the number of citations. --Find bruce (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Find bruce It is perfectly fine for this page to contain multiple types of lists. Many pages on wikipedia have multiple lists within them. It would be unnecessary to create a separate page for a chronological list, and a citation list.
 * Why does the list need to be 'useful'? It is merely of interest. Whole books have been written about the 'top 200' cases in Australia by citation. A list by citation frequency is perfectly fine for Wikipedia. I do not see why a separate article is necessary.
 * Converting the current list to a table form, with a column for number of citations may be the way to go. I will do that, but please in the meantime do not delete the citation list. As you can see from this page's traffic statistics this evening, the list by citation has been of considerable interest to the legal community. I will tidy it up but please hold off on a blanket revert for now. Jack4576 (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Find bruce I will begin work on the sortable table proposal tomorrow, I have read through the 2017 proposal. Looks like a great idea. Please hold off on reverting the page for now. Jack4576 (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The page looks horrible. We have a list of over 280 cases to which you have added a further 150. It is too long & unwieldy. Please do not engage in an edit war - you have boldly edited, I have now reverted. The process is now discuss, not revert again & try to insist that your current revision is the one that should be there. The information is retained in the article history. Please undo your recent addition, work on it in draft form and get consensus BEFORE re adding it. --Find bruce (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Find bruce I think the page looks fine. It is two separate lists, which have two different uses. One is chronological, the other is by citation number. I will tomorrow consolidate the two into one full list, as discussed.
 * I have boldly edited, indeed; so please do not revert. If you do insist on your reversion, please achieve consensus before reverting my bold edit. Thank you. Jack4576 (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Find bruce the selection of cases as initially present on this page is completely arbitrary. There isn't any reason to insist on the chronological list as superior to a list of cases by citation. In any case, they will be recombined into a single list tomorrow. Thanks. Jack4576 (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Find bruce I have combined all of the cases into one new table, and have been careful to carry over the comments associated with each cases as well. I haven't tried to edit or changed any of the comments, focus for today has just been consolidation. The task is mostly complete now, just need to add in a few more LawCite statistics for the Gleeson, French, and Kiefel court; as well as 'Area of Law' and Comment fields for the cases that currently lack those details. I hope the new sortable list will be of use to future readers. Jack4576 (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but you are completely wrong Jack - there is nothing about a bold edit that makes it correct or unable to be reverted. You want to make dramatic changes to a well settled article. Yes consensus can change, but you need to seek consensus for that change. Thank you for abandoning multiple lists which was the primary reason for my reverting. The current consensus is that the primary sorting of the list is chronological by Chief Justice, but the real advantage of a sortable list is that any reader can sort it in the order they consider appropriate. --Find bruce (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User talk:Find bruce Now that the list is sortable, and the edits have actioned the above decision made by consensus (a long time ago) this discussion is resolved. Thank you for refraining from further reverts. Jack4576 (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

By # of citations
I have added a list to this page which is ordered by the number of incoming citations. This will serve readers additional useful information on top of the list of significant cases in chronological order by each court. Jack4576 (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Find bruce please do not delete the number of incoming citations list. It is not a 'duplicate' list, it is a different list, the prior list is chronological; and based upon 'significance'. Whereas the list I have added to this page is based on number of citations.
 * It is perfectly fine for this page to contain multiple types of lists. Many pages on wikipedia have multiple lists within them. It would be unnecessary to create a separate page for a chronological list, and a citation list. Please before reverting my edit to this page without explanation; first engage in discussion on the talk page. Thank you. Jack4576 (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Random reversion

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)