ON 23 MAY 1949, the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany was passed into law. It has amended in 1990 by the Unification Treaty of 31 August and Federal Statute of 23 September.
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/gm00000_.html
1300 00 2088
Tag Archives: FIND A LAWYER
Bolton v Stone [1951] UKHL 2
ON 10 MAY 1951, the House of Lords delivered Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850; [1951] 1 All ER 1078; [1951] UKHL 2 (10 May 1951).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1951/2.html
Liability does not extend to damage caused by a certain act or omission unless the possibility of causing the damage was reasonably foreseeable at the time.
The damage is not reasonably foreseeable if the likelihood of it happening involves a risk so small that a reasonable person would feel justified in disregarding it.
1300 00 2088
1949 | Nationality and Citizenship Act
ON THIS DAY in 1949, the Commonwealth Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 came into force. The Act has since been repealed by the Citizenship Act 2007.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/naca1948831948320/
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
ON 10 DECEMBER 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
1300 00 2088
Bank of NSW v Commonwealth (“Bank Nationalisation case”) [1948] HCA 7
ON 11 AUGUST 1948, the High Court of Australia delivered Bank of NSW v Commonwealth (“Bank Nationalisation case”) [1948] HCA 7; (1948) 76 CLR 1 (11 August 1948).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1948/7.html
The High Court held that the nationalisation of banks was beyond the Commonwealth’s constitutional power.
The Banking Act 1947 (Cth) provided that the Commonwealth Bank could acquire shares in private banks, whether by agreement or compulsion. The effect of the legislation would be to grant an monopoly to the Commonwealth Bank, owned by the Commonwealth.
The Banking Act 1947 was held to be invalid on a number of grounds including (1) that it infringed the s92 constitutional guarantee of freedom of interstate trade, commerce and intercourse by compelling the States and their agencies to bank with the Commonwealth Bank and (2) the proposed acquisition was not on just terms as required under s51(xxxi).
1300 00 2088
South African apartheid begins
ON 26 MAY 1948, the policy of apartheid was introduced to South Africa.
Apartheid was developed through a series of Acts of parliament including the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act 1949, Population Registration Act 1950, Group Areas Act 1950, Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act 1951, Suppression of Communism Act 1950, Bantu Education Act 1950, Bantu Authorities Act 1951, Reservation of Separate Amenities Act 1953, Natives Urban Areas Act 1952, Native Labour Act 1953 and Black Homeland Citizenship Act 1970.
BA, LLB, Grad Cert Leg Prac, Acc Spec Lawyer
1948 | McCollum v Board of Education
ON THIS DAY in 1948, the US Supreme Court delivered McCollum v Board of Education 333 US 203 (1948).
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] EWCA Civ 1
ON 10 NOVEMBER 1947, the England and Wales Court of Appeal delivered Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] EWCA Civ 1 (10 November 1947).
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1947/1.html
A court will interfere with an administrative decision if (1) the decision maker took irrelevant matters into consideration (2) the decision maker failed to take into consideration matters which it ought to have considered and (3) the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker would have made it.
1300 00 2088
Seven Up Company v OT Ltd [1947] HCA 59
Seven Up Company v OT Ltd [1947] HCA 59; (1947) 75 CLR 203 (19 August 1947).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1947/59.html
The Seven Up Company, the US owner of the US soft drink trademark “7 UP” brought a motion to remove the Australian owned name “8 Up” from the Australian register of trademarks. Williams J dismissed the motion and an appeal to the Full Court was dismissed.
Per Williams J:
“… in the absence of fraud it is not unlawful for a trader to become the registered proprietor under the Trade Marks Act of a mark which has been used, however extensively, by another trader as a mark for similar goods in a foreign country, provided the foreign mark has not been used at all in Australia at the date of the application for registration. But the position is different if at that date the mark has become identified with the goods of the foreign trader in Australia because those goods have been brought into Australia by the foreign trader himself or by some importer or in some other manner. The court frowns upon any attempt by one trader to appropriate the mark of another trader although that trader is a foreign trader and the mark has only been used by him in a foreign country. It therefore seizes upon a very small amount of use of the foreign mark in Australia to hold that it has become identified with and distinctive of the goods of the foreign trader in Australia. It is not then a mark which another trader is entitled to apply to register under the Trade Marks Act because it is not his property but the property of the foreign trader. The registrar is entitled to refuse to register the mark for such goods. If it has been registered the court may rectify the register on the ground that the mark is wrongly entered on the register.”
1300 00 2088
Melbourne v Commonwealth (“Melbourne Corporation case”) or (“State Banking Case”) [1947] HCA 26
ON 13 AUGUST 1947, the High Court of Australia delivered Melbourne v Commonwealth (“State Banking case”) [1947] HCA 26; (1947) 74 CLR 31 (13 August 1947), also known as the Melbourne Corporation case.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1947/26.html
The Commonwealth attempted to nationalise Australian banks through the enactment of legislation including s48 of the Banking Act 1945 (Cth). The legislation was enacted under the Commonwealth Parliament’s banking powers under s51 (xxxi) of the Commonwealth Constitution.
The High Court declared s48 to be constitutionally invalid. The court implied, from the federal nature of the Constitution, limitations on the Commonwealth’s express powers. Those limitations were (1) prohibition of discriminatory burdens or disabilities on the States and (2) prohibition of making laws of general application which operate to destroy or curtail the continued existence of the States or their ability to govern.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 
