Talk:Leahy v Attorney-General (NSW)

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Law Low‑importance

	Australia portal Leahy v Attorney-General (NSW) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Needed rebuilding

The existing content clearly wasn't an acceptable Wikipedia article, and seemed to be a ~~lazy~~ cut-paste job. Thus it was replaced with the current stub. Some searches clearly suggest this is a notable and frequently-referenced case, but needs a bit more legal understanding that I can provide. Dl2000 (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have substantially re-written the article. It is now at a decent level in terms of the background, decision of the High Court and of the Privy Council. The article would benefit from additional detail on its subsequent judicial and academic consideration. Find bruce (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]