VIC Australian Law - Name for When Government takes You to Court?

[glueparkenigma]

Looking through a online court case database I see many "names" for what I would call the "government" being used in the court case names... In Australian Law, what is the rule for which name is used and what is the difference between them?

For example, here I found some examples of the different terms used:

The Crown : The Crown v Dalgety and Co Ltd [1944] ArgusLawRp 6; (1944) 50 Argus LR 75 (2 March 1944)

Crown in right : Crown in the right of New South Wales v Anthony Gevaux [2011] NSWSC 608 (21 June 2011)
CSPU & Anor v Crown in Right of Victoria & Anor [1998] FCA 1557 (28 October 1998)

Queen : Queen v Griggs [1999] FCA 1573 (12 November 1999)
The Queen v LK; The Queen v RK [2009] HCATrans 146 (19 June 2009)

Crown Solicitor : Crown Solicitor v Gilbert [1937] ArgusLawRp 118; (1938) 44 Argus LR 65 (16 December 1937)
Crown Solicitor (SA) v Gilbert [1937] HCA 79; (1937) 59 CLR 322 (16 December 1937)
Crown Solicitor (NSW) v Stubbs [1929] HCA 17; (1929) 42 CLR 312 (2 August 1929)

Attorney General : ATTORNEY-GENERAL v KOWALSKI [2014] SASC 1 (20 January 2014)
Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales v Markisic [2012] NSWSC 866 (2 August 2012) (I wonder what's the "in and for" for?)

The Commonwealth : Commonwealth v Dovoro / Commonwealth v Stonecat [1999] NSWSC 807 (5 August 1999)
Commonwealth v Anderson [1960] HCA 85; (1960) 105 CLR 303 (23 November 1960)

The State of : The State of Victoria v Sportsbet Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 143 (12 October 2012)
LENNON v THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA [2010] SASC 272 (2 September 2010)

And then you have government departments being separated out into their own Entities:

eg : Victoria Police Association v Victoria Police [1997] VADT 70 (17 November 1997)

Where the police are generally thought of as Government as implied in : State of Victoria (Victoria Police) v McCombe [2000] VSC 109 (24 March 2000)

Also we have cases titled : New South Wales v Commonwealth [1975] HCA 58; (1975) 135 CLR 337 (17 December 1975) that don't mention state, crown or queen, or "in right of".

And sometimes the Commonwealth has it's full name : Commonwealth of Australia v Anti Discrimination Tribunal (Tasmania) (Corrigendum 19 June 2008) [2008] FCAFC 104 (13 June 2008)

Why can the crown solicitor act independently from the crown or the state or the government etc.

And then the states can take each other to court (even though the link of the same queen) each other : Tasmania v Victoria [1935] HCA 4; (1935) 52 CLR 157 (6 March 1935)

 

[Iamthelaw]

There are many different names that would be used - These will differ based on the types of proceedings, what 'sector' of the government you are involved with, etc.

There's too many for me to type but I'll put some comments in response to your message below...

"Looking through a online court case database I see many "names" for what I would call the "government" being used in the court case names... In Australian Law, what is the rule for which name is used and what is the difference between them?

For example, here I found some examples of the different terms used:

The Crown : The Crown v Dalgety and Co Ltd [1944] ArgusLawRp 6; (1944) 50 Argus LR 75 (2 March 1944)

Crown in right : Crown in the right of New South Wales v Anthony Gevaux [2011] NSWSC 608 (21 June 2011)
CSPU & Anor v Crown in Right of Victoria & Anor [1998] FCA 1557 (28 October 1998)
Crown in right of the state is reserved for mainly constitutional cases.

Queen : Queen v Griggs [1999] FCA 1573 (12 November 1999)
The Queen v LK; The Queen v RK [2009] HCATrans 146 (19 June 2009)
Queen v Whoever - This would be criminal proceedings, prosecutions are brought against people, representing the Queen in right of the Commonwealth. Note: These can be substituted for 'R' eg, R v Smith 2013 - R stands for Regina, latin for Queen.

Crown Solicitor : Crown Solicitor v Gilbert [1937] ArgusLawRp 118; (1938) 44 Argus LR 65 (16 December 1937)
Crown Solicitor (SA) v Gilbert [1937] HCA 79; (1937) 59 CLR 322 (16 December 1937)
Crown Solicitor (NSW) v Stubbs [1929] HCA 17; (1929) 42 CLR 312 (2 August 1929)
Quite old decisions. Where you see something like this - or eg, DPP v Gilbert, it means that the Prosecution has appealed a decision (for example).

Attorney General : ATTORNEY-GENERAL v KOWALSKI [2014] SASC 1 (20 January 2014)
Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales v Markisic [2012] NSWSC 866 (2 August 2012) (I wonder what's the "in and for" for?)
Just means Attorney Generals office has instigated the proceedings. Usually for vexatious litigants and also for some migration matters I believe?

The Commonwealth : Commonwealth v Dovoro / Commonwealth v Stonecat [1999] NSWSC 807 (5 August 1999)
Commonwealth v Anderson [1960] HCA 85; (1960) 105 CLR 303 (23 November 1960)
The Commonwealth government has initiated proceedings against a party.

The State of : The State of Victoria v Sportsbet Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 143 (12 October 2012)
LENNON v THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA [2010] SASC 272 (2 September 2010)
As above, the Victorian Government has initiated proceedings against some one.

And then you have government departments being separated out into their own Entities:

eg : Victoria Police Association v Victoria Police [1997] VADT 70 (17 November 1997)
That's because certain government departments have power to bring proceedings against individuals. I haven't looked at this case, or any of them but it seems like it would be a disciplinary proceeding of some sort.

Where the police are generally thought of as Government as implied in : State of Victoria (Victoria Police) v McCombe [2000] VSC 109 (24 March 2000)

Also we have cases titled : New South Wales v Commonwealth [1975] HCA 58; (1975) 135 CLR 337 (17 December 1975) that don't mention state, crown or queen, or "in right of".
This is because the state government is challenging the constitutional validity of a law against the commonwealth government.

And sometimes the Commonwealth has it's full name : Commonwealth of Australia v Anti Discrimination Tribunal (Tasmania) (Corrigendum 19 June 2008) [2008] FCAFC 104 (13 June 2008)

Why can the crown solicitor act independently from the crown or the state or the government etc.

And then the states can take each other to court (even though the link of the same queen) each other : Tasmania v Victoria [1935] HCA 4; (1935) 52 CLR 157 (6 March 1935)"