FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ly v Jenkins [2001] FCA 1640
THANH HAO LY v GLENN JENKINS, GRANT RAPER and JENNIFER BETTS, A LOCAL COURT MAGISTRATE
N230 of 2001
THANH DAI LY v GLENN JENKINS, GRANT RAPER and JENNIFER BETTS, A LOCAL COURT MAGISTRATE
N231 of 2001
MOORE, SACKVILLE AND KIEFEL JJ
26 NOVEMBER 2001
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
N 230 OF 2001 |
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
APPELLANT
|
|
AND: |
FIRST RESPONDENT
GRANT RAPER SECOND RESPONDENT
JENNIFER BETTS, A LOCAL COURT MAGISTRATE THIRD RESPONDENT
|
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
N 231 OF 2001 |
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
THANH HAO LY APPELLANT
|
|
AND: |
GLENN JENKINS FIRST RESPONDENT
GRANT RAPER SECOND RESPONDENT
JENNIFER BETTS, A LOCAL COURT MAGISTRATE THIRD RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGES: |
|
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
CORRIGENDUM
In the Reasons the Honourable Justices Moore, Sackville and Kiefel delete paragraph 145 and replace it as follows:
145. Two other members of the Court in Cheng, McHugh and Callinan JJ, considered the question of construction and concluded that the established interpretation of s 80 of the Constitution was correct: at 1506 per McHugh J, (at [143]); 1535 per Callinan J (at [283]) (although his Honour expressed “disquiet” about the result).
Associate:
14 May 2002
