Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 19 September 2012 38 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2012] HCAB 09 (19 September 2012)

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
Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff S49/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff S51/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship	Administrative Law
Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd	Banker and Customer
Burns v The Queen	Criminal Law
Douglass v The Queen	Criminal Law
Likiardopoulos v The Queen	Criminal Law
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay	Industrial law
P.T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission	Public International Law
The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal; The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal; The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal; The National Competition Council v Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd; The National Competition Council v Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd	Trade Practices

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
The Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated of NSW v Director of Public Employment & Ors	Constitutional Law
Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission	Consumer Law
Westfield Management Limited as Trustee for the Westart Trust v AMP Capital Property Nominees Limited as Nominee of Unisuper Limited in its Capacity as Trustee of the Complying Superannuation Fund Known as Unisuper & Anor	Corporations Law
Stanford v Stanford	Family Law

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
There are no new matters ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court since High Court Bulletin 8 [2012] HCAB 08.

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Weinstock & Anor v Beck & Anor	Corporations Law
Huynh v The Queen	Criminal Law
Karpany & Anor v Dietman	Native Title
Castle Constructions Pty Limited v Sahab Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor	Property
Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors	Torts

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the September 2012 sittings.

Administrative Law

Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff S49/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff S51/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

S10/2011;S43/2011;S49/2011;S51/2011: [2012] HCA 31.

Judgment delivered: 7 September 2012.

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

Catchwords:

Administrative law – Procedural fairness – Migration – Refugees – Review by Refugee Review Tribunal and Migration Review Tribunal – Ministerial discretion – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) confers powers upon Minister to dispense with statutory requirements…

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: [2012] HCAB 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia handed down several judgments in September 2012. In Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff S49/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff S51/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the Court considered whether the statutory provisions conferring dispensing powers on the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship adversely affected the sufficient interest of a party seeking exercise of those powers, and whether they excluded any obligation of the Minister to accord procedural fairness to the plaintiffs. In Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, the Court considered whether certain fees charged by the bank were penalties and whether the penalty doctrine was limited to circumstances where there is a breach of contract. In Burns v The Queen, the Court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant a new trial on the basis that the appellant administered or assisted in administering a drug to the deceased, and whether the appellant had a legal duty to take steps to preserve the deceased's life.

The legal issues in these cases were complex and required the Court to consider a range of legal principles, including administrative law, criminal law, and the doctrine of penalties. The Court's reasoning and outcome in each case were carefully considered, and the final orders reflected the Court's interpretation of the law. These cases demonstrate the importance of understanding the legal principles that apply to a particular dispute and the need for careful consideration of the facts and arguments presented.

Orders