Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 20 March 2013 31 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the Legal Research Officer,
High Court of Australia Library

[2013] HCAB 02 (20 March 2013)

A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, refused special leave to appeal and not proceeding or vacated

1: Cases Handed Down
2: Cases Reserved
3: Original Jurisdiction
4: Special Leave Granted
5: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
6: Special Leave Refused

Summary of New Entries

1: Cases Handed Down

Case	Title
Attorney-General for the State of South Australia v Corporation of the City of Adelaide & Ors	Constitutional Law
Monis v The Queen & Anor; Droudis v The Queen & Anor	Constitutional Law
TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia and Anor	Constitutional Law
Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd & Anor	Constitutional Law
Huynh v The Queen; Duong v The Queen; Sem v The Queen	Criminal Law
Yates v The Queen	Criminal Law

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
SZOQQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor	Citizenship and Migration
Fortescue Metals Group Limited & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia	Constitutional Law
Commissioner of Taxation v Unit Trend Services Pty Ltd	Taxation
Wallace v Kam	Torts

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
There are no new matters ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court.

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Pantazis; Issa; & Elias v The Queen & Anor	Criminal Law
Nguyen v The Queen	Criminal Law
Westpac Banking Corporation & Ors v Bell Group Ltd (In Liq) & Ors	Equity
Legal Services Board v Gillespie-Jones	Legal Practitioners

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the February-March 2013 sittings.

Constitutional Law

Attorney-General for the State of South Australia v Corporation of the City of Adelaide & Ors

A16/2012: [2013] HCA 3.

Judgment delivered: 27 February 2013.

Coram: French CJ, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – Implied freedom of communication on government and political matters – Where by-law prohibited preaching and distributing printed matter on any road without permission – Whether by-law effectively burdened freedom of political communication – Whether by-law reasonably appropriate and adapted to achieving legitimate end in manner compatible with system of representative and responsible government.
Local government – Where power to make by-laws "for the good rule and government of the area, and for the convenience, comfort and safety of its inhabitants" – Whether generally expressed by-law making power must be narrowly or restrictively construed – Whether by-law exceeded limitations on power delegated to local government under Local Government Act 1934 (SA) – Whether by-law complied with limitations and procedures prescribed by Local Government Act 1999 (SA) – Whether by-law was reasonable and proportionate exercise of by-law making power.
Words and phrases – "could not reasonably have been adopted", "legitimate end", "licence", "political communication", "principle of legality",…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read High Court Bulletin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] HCAB 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General for the State of South Australia v Corporation of the City of Adelaide, the High Court of Australia was required to determine whether a by-law prohibiting preaching and distributing printed matter on any road without permission effectively burdened the implied freedom of political communication and whether the by-law was a reasonable and proportionate exercise of the by-law making power. The Court found that the by-law did burden the freedom of political communication and that it was not a reasonable and proportionate exercise of the by-law making power.

In Monis v The Queen, the High Court was required to decide whether a criminal offence under s 471.12 of the Criminal Code for using the postal service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as menacing, harassing or offensive effectively burdens the implied freedom of political communication and whether it is reasonably appropriate and adapted to a legitimate end. The Court held that the provision did burden the implied freedom of political communication but was reasonably appropriate and adapted to a legitimate end.

In TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia, the High Court had to determine whether the judicial power of the Commonwealth was vested in arbitral tribunals. The Court found that the judicial power of the Commonwealth was not vested in arbitral tribunals and that the Federal Court of Australia had no power to refuse to enforce an arbitral award for error of law on the face of the award.

In Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd, the High Court had to decide whether provisions of the Criminal Organisation Act 2009 (Q) denied procedural fairness to respondents to a criminal organisation application and whether they were repugnant to or inconsistent with the continued institutional integrity of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Court held that the provisions did not deny procedural fairness to respondents and were not repugnant to or inconsistent with the continued institutional integrity of the Supreme Court.

Orders