Considerable confusion and difference of opinion exists as to the precise boundaries of jurisdiction in custody matters between Federal and State courts. This Article examines the main cases in which the scope of the Family Court's custody jurisdiction has been in issue, and reviews suggestions made to remedy the problems resulting from the division of jurisdiction. The authors argue for an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) which is consistent with the trend of High Court authority as to the scope of the marriage power (section 51(xxi) of the Constitution), and which would remove much of the uncertainty concerning the Family Court's jurisdiction.

The Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 (Cth) was modelled closely on the United States Sherman Act. Early United States criminal monopolization cases were not very successful, and the statutory language was read down by a judiciary oriented toward common law contract analysis. The same thing is happening in current Australian cases. One of the finest monopolization opinions ever written is that of Mr Justice Isaacs in the 1911 Coal Vend case. It should be resurrected and used as the foundation for the development of Australian restrictive trade practices law.

Family Law — Property settlements — Companies own matrimonial assets — Interim injunctions — Whether the position of third party shareholders is a relevant consideration — Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s. 114

Constitutional Law—Separation of Judicial Power—Constitution s. 51(xxxv)—Dispute as to classification of employee under Commonwealth Award—Whether dispute extends beyond the limits of any one State