Book Review: Liability of the Crown
| Author | Harry Whitmore |
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X7200500112 |
| Published date | 01 March 1972 |
| Date | 01 March 1972 |
| Subject Matter | Book Reviews |
156 Federal
Law
Review
[VOLUME
5I
unless an appeal
is
provided
by
the relevant Act?
The
remedy
of,
declaration seems unavailable and the prerogative writs, with one very
technical exception, seem to
be
based
upon
the concept
of
lack of juris-
diction,
that
is, the "void" type of decision.
The
authors also fail to
point
out
that the voidability predicated
in
Durayappah
v.
Fernando8
was avery peculiar type
of
voidability.
However, criticism must
on
the whole
be
directed
at
the
mode
of
arrangement of the
book
rather than its substance.
The
chapter
on
the
Crown is very well done indeed, though one must query
the
suitability
of the inclusion of this topic in administrative law as
it
has
nothing
to
do
with the control of the process of administrative decision-making as
such.
The
sketch of the constitutional
and
governmental background is
valuable, especially where it deals wjth
the
structure of
the
central
administration in Australia. All in all the book
must
be
rated
as agood
analytical discussion
of
aconfused area.
E.
I.
SYKES*
Liability
of
the
Crown
by
PETER
W.
HOGG,
LL.B.
(N.Z.),
LL.B.
(Harv.),
PH.D.
(Monash),
Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall
Law
School,
York
University.
(The
La\v Book Company (Australia) Limited,
1971.)
pp. i-xxvii, 1-257. $9.75.
ISBN: 0455 15820 7
On
reading this book Iam filled with regret
that
one
of
our
leading
public lawyers, Peter Hogg,
has
left Monash University to take
up
achair
in Canada.
It
is quite certain, Ithink, that
had
he
stayed in Australia he
would have left much more of a
mark
in
the
field of administrative law
than
he
already has done.
The
book was originally written as aPh.D. thesis
and
it
does show
some signs of this.
One
sign is adecided over-emphasis
on
authority;
many
pages bear footnotes extending to half apage and more. There is
also atendency to\vards blandness in exposition.
The
thesis
has
not
been
extensively altered
to
take account of later cases.
The
most marked
example
of
this is
to
be
seen in
the
treatment
(or
rather non-treatment)
of
Dorset
Yacht
Co.
Ltd
v.
Home
Office.1
The
case is referred to once
in afootnote (page
70).
In
abook with acentral theme
of
Crown
liability it might have been expected that the author would assess the
importance of the case for the future; quite obviously
Lord
Diplock had
no intention of confining his remarks about tortious liability in the case
of
abuse of discretion to escapees from Borstal institutions. Peter Hogg
8{1967] 2A.C. 337.
*Professor
of
Public Law, University
of
Melbourne.
~970]
A.C. 1004.
To continue reading
Request your trial