O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd (No 2)

{{Short description|Judgement of the High Court of Australia}}

{{Use Australian English|date=January 2018}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2018}}

{{Infobox court case

| name = O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd (No 2)

| court = High Court of Australia

| image = Coat of Arms of Australia.svg

| date decided = 13 October 1956

| full name =

| citations = {{cite AustLII|HCA|9|1956|parallelcite=(1956) 94 CLR 367}}

| judges = Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Williams, Webb, Fullagar, Kitto and Taylor JJ

| prior actions =O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd (1954) 92 CLR 565

| subsequent actions = {{cite BAILII |litigants=O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd |year=1956 |court=UKPC |num=24 |format=1 |parallelcite=[1957] AC 1}};
{{cite AustLII|UKPCHCA|4|1956|parallelcite=(1956) 95 CLR 177 |courtname=auto}}

| opinions = (7:0) The Court rejected an application to appeal to the Privy Council from the previous case.

}}

{{italics title|all=yes|noerror}}

O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd (No 2),{{cite AustLII|HCA|9|1956|litigants=O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd (No.2) |parallelcite=(1956) 94 CLR 367|courtname=High Court |date=2 March 1956}} was a High Court of Australia case, in which a certificate, under s 74 of the Australian Constitution, was sought for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the previous decision of O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd.{{cite AustLII|HCA|29|1954|litigants=O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd |parallelcite=(1954) 92 CLR 565 |date=17 December 1954 |courtname=High Court}}.

In the preceding case, it was held that the Commonwealth's extensive regulations regarding premises used for the slaughtering of livestock for export were valid under s 51(i) of the Constitution. In June 1955 the Privy Council gave special leave to appeal except to the extent they required a certificate of appeal under section 74. O'Sullivan applied to the High Court for a certificate of appeal.

Dixon CJ, Williams, Webb and Fullagar JJ wrote a joint judgment refusing a certificate of appeal stating that the policy of section 74 was to confine the decision of essentially federal questions to the High Court. McTiernan, Kitto and Taylor JJ each delivered concurring judgments.

The Privy Council took a narrower view of section 74 than the High Court, holding that the question of whether laws were inconsistent involved the application of section 109 of the Constitution and did not involve a question in relation to the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and the States. The Privy Council dismissed the appeal, approving the earlier decision of the statutory majority of the High Court,As this was a stated case and not an appeal, the decision of the Chief Justice prevailed: Judiciary Act 1903 s23 as amended by the [https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1912A00031/38649a6b-fc03-48c0-949a-8bdeb05e650f Judiciary Act 1912]. particularly the judgment of Fullager J.{{cite BAILII |litigants=O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd |year=1956 |court=UKPC |num=24 |format=1 |parallelcite=[1957] AC 1}}; {{cite AustLII|UKPCHCA|4|1956|parallelcite=(1956) 95 CLR 177 |courtname=auto |date=4 July 1956}}.