Page:Crosby v Kelly (2012, FCAFC).pdf/6

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

- 3 -

consent to a conferral of jurisdiction. That interpretation was rejected by Gummow and Hayne JJ at [116]–[127] in Re Wakim; ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511 and Gleeson CJ and Gaudron J agreed with that analysis. For that reason, the submission cannot be accepted. I agree with the reasons given by Robertson J.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram.

Associate:

Dated: 4 July 2012