Book Review: Philip Ayres, The Miegunyah Press
| Author | Fiona Wheeler |
| Published date | 01 June 2003 |
| Date | 01 June 2003 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X0303100207 |
| Subject Matter | Book Reviews |
BOOK REVIEW
OWEN DIXON, PHILIP AYRES, THE MIEGUNYAH PRESS,
2003
Fiona Wheeler*
Owen Dixon has been described as the 'finest lawyer' Australia has produced.1 Born in
1886 and called to the Victorian Bar in 1910, Dixon's personal story spans more than
half a century of Australian law and politics. As a barrister and judge, Dixon's
professional life was dominated by the High Court of Australia. Over time, however,
Dixon came to dominate the High Court and it is difficult to identify anyone who has
had a greater impact on the Court and its jurisprudence. Dixon's outstanding
intellectual ability combined with an exceptional memory and strong work ethic lay
behind his success.2 He first appeared before the High Court as a 25-year-old barrister
in 1911, addressing Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ in Cock v Aitken.3 This cannot
have been easy; Dixon later told one of his associates 'that as a barrister he had been
nervous, and felt he should be nervous, at the opening of every case'.4 Nonetheless,
within a decade of Cock v Aitken Dixon had a thriving High Court practice, regularly
appearing in constitutional and general law matters.5 He was appointed a Justice of the
High Court in 1929 and Chief Justice in 1952. When he retired from the Court in 1964,
he was aged nearly 78. During his judicial career, Dixon engaged in certain non-
judicial activities without resigning his seat on the High Court. The most famous
example is his service as Australian Minister to the United States from 1942 to 1944.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
* Faculty of Law, ANU.
1 Sir Anthony Mason, 'The Centenary of the High Court of Australia' (2003) 5 Constitutional
Law and Policy Review 41, 42. Mason is critical of Dixon's judicial methodology, however:
see, eg, at 45.
2 On Dixon's memory, see Philip Ayres, Owen Dixon (2003) 25–6. On his work ethic, see, eg,
at 39, 47, 49, 65, 148, 260–1.
3 (1911) 13 CLR 461. Dixon's argument is summarised in the report at 465–6. As Ayres notes
in his account of Cock v Aitken, Dixon's brief in this matter came from his uncle, solicitor
John Dixon: Philip Ayres, Owen Dixon (2003) 21.
4 Philip Ayres, Owen Dixon (2003) 26.
5 Ibid 27, 32.
To continue reading
Request your trial