No international body has jurisdiction
Australia is a sovereign nation which means it has sole jurisdiction over its immigration policy. So, short answer: no international body has jurisdiction.
Who does have jurisdiction?
As it seems that the decision made is that the points you have been assessed by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (...
The bouncer is employed (or (sub)contracted) by the owner/lessee of premises - someone with the right to evict persons from their private property per the common law rights to exclusive use of one's property.
When the bouncer evicts you, they are exercising this right on behalf of and as the agent for the owner, who could do it, but instead has assigned ...
Let's put to bed the myth of privacy that is at the heart of your question: in R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204 Justice Dowd said “A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed.”
In general, you can take photos of people; statues have even less privacy rights.
There are limitations mainly related to voyeurism and commercial use, which ...
So my understanding is that the phrase "common law" can refer to either the concept of laws established by court precedent or it can refer to a specific body of laws that have been established that way.
Should I just be inferring that from context?
Is there a single body of "common law"?
Are there distinct bodies of "U.K. common law"...
The law is not settled and will shortly be before the High Court (sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns) but theoretically: yes!
The provision on Disqualification is s44, specifically subsection (i):
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled ...
Common law is based on the system of law established in England following the Norman Conquest in 1066.
Its principle was simple: that like cases should be treated alike. This differed from the prior laws, which varied between the different local courts, and in doing this, the kings (who, in the beginning, were the ones who held court) avoided arbitrariness. ...
The only proper venue to raise the concern you do would be an Australian court or administrative agency process.
Each country is the judge of its own immigration policies.
There are no international courts which would have jurisdiction over the dispute you describe.
I am not a lawyer; I am not your lawyer.
You do not cite a jurisdiction so this makes it very difficult to get a definitive answer. What follows is for Australia but the general principles are common law and would be applicable to other common law jurisdictions except where statues apply or case law has diverged.
In the first instance, it seems that you ...
Let's put to bed the myth of privacy that is at the heart of your question: in R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204 Justice Dowd said “A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed"
So they can ask you to stop; its bad manners if you don't but it is not illegal.
If they are the controller of the property then they can stop you filming ...
This is an excellent explanation.
All Australian jurisdictions have (in general) common road rules. In NSW these are enacted by Road Rules 2014 regulation under the Road Transport Act 2013.
The relevant provision is Clause 306:
306 Exemption for drivers of emergency vehicles
A provision of these Rules does not apply to the driver of an emergency ...
It is the lower courts' interpretation of a senior court's judgment—specifically the ratio—that determines what is the precedent. If a court doesn't want its opinion to bind lower courts, it can be clear in its judgment that this is not what was intended. For example, a court could say that
this judgment turns on the particular facts of this ...
The AusPat database is an excellent source for looking for Australian patents. I did a quick search for "card game" and came across 276 results fitting those keywords. Not all involve the classic generic-52-card-deck format, but some do.
A good example - and one that seems similar to your idea - is "Modified blackjack game using non-standard blackjack ...
Actually, Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Elizabeth II are not sovereigns of any common state. QEI was sovereign of England and Wales and QEII is sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (among others).
The numbering has nothing to do with the states they are sovereign over: it is familial number dating from William I (the Conquerer)...
Firstly, this is actually a really good question - The Australian Constitution grants few explicit protections or rights to people, and it does not protect you from discrimination on the basis of age.
In any case, you'll find that it is not a violation of the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth) - see s39. This makes an exemption, amongst others, to the Act ...
With respect to many questions of law minors are not people. Human rights vest as people age: there are any number of variations by jurisdiction, but you will see the following (often constitutional) rights granted at different ages:
To own property
To enter into contracts
To work for pay
To decline an education
To consent to medical treatment
To be secure ...
In most places I imagine the issue would go before a probate judge who would attempt to determine the validity of each presented will, and if both were valid, then they would attempt to reconcile the disparities to the best of their ability.
Broadly speaking, the process would look like this (I'm using UK law as an example):
An individual is chosen ...
The quickest way to get the text of Australian judgements is through AustLII.
Reading the citation
Tame v New South Wales
In this case, the parties are (Clare Janet) Tame and (the State of) New South Wales.
There is a subtle distinction between the above years: in brackets  is generally (but not always) the ...
I strongly suspect that the answer is that no, this would not work.
The validity of the additional grant of citizenship would be evaluated by an Australian court applying Australian law. One of the underlying principles of that body of law is that gifts must be accepted and can be disclaimed. Another is that an adult's legal status cannot normally be ...
It is certainly true that different states who share a Head of State can have different succession rules. Thus William IV of the United Kingdom was also King of Hannover. The UK allowed female succession, so Victoria was Queen of the United Kingdom; Hannover didn't, so he was succeeded by Ernest Augustus there.
At the moment, all the Commonwealth Realms ...
Dale has the right answer, but I'd like to elaborate on why it isn't lawful (as compared to why it would be unlawful).
I know it doesn't work that way on line, but it's simpler to think of a credit card as a physical piece of plastic. The bank will have issued this to their customer. It will have a number and an expiry date. You have no way of knowing ...
I'm not a lawyer; I'm not your lawyer.
The Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) s 73A makes the obstruction of the operation of a safety camera or speed detector an offence.
It is likely that the obstruction of a mobile speed camera would fall within this offence.
The law does not restrict the operation of the device to police, and so it may not be ...
In general in the absence of a contract one has no clear legal obligation to pay for a shared service.
Note, however, that the absence of a written contract does not mean that no contract is in force: Courts have often held that oral and even implied contracts hold the same force of law as a written contract.
If you want legal advice you need to talk to a ...
On the face of it there is nothing illegal about your proposal, however, "Australia maintains some of the most restrictive Internet policies of any Western country". In addition, a suit can be brought under Australian law for any material accessible in Australia irrespective of the original source or where it is hosted.
The Australian ...
Regarding to your instructions concerning the funds in the account, it's hard to prove a negative. As far as I know there is no legislation that requires a credit balance to be retained. However, there may be some regulations or internal policies regarding the closure of home loans, which may preclude closure without some documentation or other process.
Companies dissolve by one of two modes: voluntarily or involuntarily.
If it's a voluntary dissolution: the assets remaining after paying all the creditors are distributed among the owners according to their ownership percentages or by some other agreement. The successor owner of the IP will be determined at that time.
In the case of an involuntary ...
The Queen doesn't need legal rights, she is the law!
As per Dale M's answer, Her Majesty doesn't meet the requirements to be a citizen of Australia under the Citizenship Act, nor has she ever been granted that status.
Someone else will need to fill in the legal reasons as to whether or not a law like the Migration Act could be enforced against Her Majesty ...
In NSW and all other Australian jurisdictions lotteries and other games of chance are regulated. See https://www.liquorandgaming.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/gaming/competitions/games-of-chance.aspx
In general, lottery type games can only be run for the benefit of charities or by registered clubs. Free entry games can be run as trade promotions.
If we actually talk about criminal law, your question is answered by §§ 1 and 2 StGB (the German penal code) – official but of course not binding translation:
§ 1 [No punishment without law]
An act may only be punished if criminal liability had been established by law before the act was committed.
§ 2 [Jurisdiction ratione temporis; lex ...
Wikipedia is pretty comprehensive.
As a general rule, the following types of airsoft guns are illegal in all states:
Guns capable of fully automatic fire.
Guns that outwardly resemble a sub-machine gun or machine pistol.
In addition, specific states have further rules e.g. in NSW they are strictly prohibited, whereas in the NT they are ...
Under US law, referring to the rather broad range of anti-trust legislation, regulation and case law, the most important issue is whether there is a conspiracy. A public discussion of some policy question is clearly not a conspiracy (even if only certain individuals are allowed to speak at the forum). So it is actually not illegal for executives to discuss ...