Talk:Re Canavan

Page name

Is it a usual convention to shorten this sort of lengthy case name in this way ("Re Canavan")? In any case, I feel as though it might cause confusion as a page name, given that the page deals with all 7 politicians, not just Canavan. A name like "Citizenship Seven case" may be better and would be a WP:COMMONNAME. Liguer (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep. High Court cases get shortened in this way (in formal sources) all the time when there are many parties, and for clarity we call High Court cases by their actual name, rather than by some random pseudonym. (Not least in this case because it's looking extremely likely there will be more than one case.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

IANAL, but the High Court itself refers to the case as 'Re Canavan Re Ludlam Re Waters Re Roberts [No 2] Re Joyce Re Nash Re Xenophon [2017] HCA 45'. See [http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2017/HCA/45. Even that's far from ideal but far more descriptive than the abbreviated current version. That said I'm more a fan of sticking with actual case names over names for convenience sake. -- Longhair\^talk 12:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually there are seven cases (the High Court lists submissions etc for each separately), but they were heard at the same time & a single judgment given. It's common for multiple cases to be heard together & to be referred to by reference to the short title of the first case, in the same way as when there are multiple parties its just the first plaintiff and first defendant that are referred to. Are you concerned that someone will be looking for it under another name? If so redirects are cheap. The problem with common names is that they can change - eg New South Wales v Commonwealth (1915) was known as the Wheat case, but is now referred to as the Interstate Commission case. If you look at List of High Court of Australia cases you will see the naming approach that has been adopted. Find bruce (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable then. Liguer (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that in Katy Gallagher's Citizenship Register the cases are referred to as Re Canavan & Ors. IANAL, but that would seem like it might be a better name for this page? --SnorlaxMonster 11:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That'd be incorrect I think, because each of the cases is a separate case, whereas 'and others' would refer to a single case with multiple parties. Kb.au (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Kb.au is right. Several cases, each of them a separate referral, were heard together. The full name is: "Re Canavan; Re Ludlam; Re Waters; Re Roberts [No 2]; Re Joyce; Re Nash; Re Xenophon [2017] HCA 45". I think "Re Canavan" will do here. Wikiain (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Kb.au & Wikiain & note that in a subsequent decision the High Court refers to the case as Re Canavan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Find bruce (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)