Is the Invocation of Inherent Jurisdiction the Same as the Exercise of Inherent Powers? Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario [Case Note]

Author

Siyuan CHEN, Singapore Management UniversityFollow

Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

10-2013

Abstract

In Re McC (A Minor), Lord Bridge of Harwich remarked that few words have been ‘used with so many different shades of meaning in different contexts’ and ‘have so freely acquired new meanings’ as the word ‘jurisdiction’. The definitional conundrum deepens when ‘jurisdiction’ is combined with the adjective ‘inherent,’ yet common law courts around the world routinely claim to invoke inherent jurisdiction for a wide array of purposes in civil and criminal matters, ranging from the reception of evidence to the ensuring of a fair trial, and this necessarily raises questions about the limits of such an exercise.

Discipline

Internet Law | Jurisdiction

Publication

International Journal of Evidence and Proof

Volume

17

Issue

4

First Page

367

Last Page

374

ISSN

1365-7127

Identifier

10.1350/ijep.2013.17.4.437

Publisher

Blackstone Press

Citation

CHEN, Siyuan. Is the Invocation of Inherent Jurisdiction the Same as the Exercise of Inherent Powers? Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario [Case Note]. (2013). International Journal of Evidence and Proof. 17, (4), 367-374.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1208

Copyright Owner and License

Author

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.

Additional URL

http://doi.org/10.1350/ijep.2013.17.4.437