What is the 'it'?

In the book I say some possibly heretical things about what name you should give to a case that your judge is citing. But I also say that, generally speaking, when you see a side title (ie, a case name that runs down the outside margin of the pages in a law report) you can usually be confident in adopting that.

But not always. Even the Commonwealth Law Reports, it turns out, is not infallible. I recently discovered that the case of San Sebastian Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (1986) 162 CLR 340 was given a side title of San Sebastian Pty Ltd v The Minister. That is a pretty meaningless title to give to a case. Its adoption has nothing going for it other than brevity. Brevity can be a virtue, but not here.

I’m can’t see any reason for not using the full name. It’s not as if there wouldn’t have been enough space for it. The same volume contains a case which has, as its side title, the name Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd [No 2]. And that, even with four judges’ names sitting below it, still doesn’t run more than a quarter of the way down the page.

I can only assume that James Merralls QC, who presided over the CLRs with a firm hand and a clear-eyed vision for many decades, had taken the day off.