The main and most common role of courts is to apply laws made by parliament, particularly when such laws are broken.
Sometimes the meaning of words in a certain Act is unclear. When a relevant case comes before them, courts can give meaning to these words.
If a court makes a law deemed to be inappropriate, parliament may pass law overriding (abrogating) the court made-law
Parliament can confirm (codify) common law principles. Perhaps adding to them or slightly amending them, when putting such principles into statute form. When confirming such principles parliament will pass a “codifying Act”
For example, the Franklin Dam Case increased the Commonwealth’s power in the area of external affairs.
For example, R. v Brislan challenged the law stating that a person must have a license to use a wireless radio.
For examples, parliaments passed the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 and the Family Law Act 1975.
Donoghue v. Stevens began the development of the law of negligence in England.
e.g. Knight v. Anderson1 : The Victorian Supreme Court allowed Julian Knight, also known as the Hoddle street killer, to seek an injunction that would allow him to write to one of his victims’ families. This led people to complain about the inadequacy of the law in such situations. In response, Victorian Parliament introduced a new law to give prison governors the power to intercept or sensor letters sent by prisoners if the letter content may be distressing or traumatic.
High Court interpretation of the Constitution
Strengths and weaknesses of law-making through the courts
Knight v Anderson  VSC 278 ↩
Want to suggest an edit? Have some questions? General comments? Let us know how we can make this resource more useful to you.