Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 15 May 2024 54 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2024] HCAB 4 (15 May 2024)

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: Summary of New Entries
2: Cases Handed Down
3: Cases Reserved
4: Original Jurisdiction
5: Section 40 Removal
6: Special Leave Granted
7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
8: Special Leave Refused

1: Summary of New Entries

2: Cases Handed Down

Case	Title
ASF17 v Commonwealth of Australia	Constitutional Law
Cessnock City Council v 123 259 932 Pty Ltd	Damages
Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority v Director of National Parks	Statutes
Obian v The King	Statutes

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
RC v The Salvation Army (Western Australia) Property Trust	Civil Procedure
Willmot v The State of Queensland	Civil Procedure
HBSY Pty Ltd ACN 151 894 049 v Lewis & Anor	Courts
The King v Hatahet	Criminal Law
BQ v The King	Evidence
Cook (A Pseudonym) v The King	Evidence

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
YBFZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor	Constitutional Law

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Naaman v Jaken Properties Australia Pty Limited ACN 123 423 432 & Ors	Equity
BIF23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs	Immigration
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Ors v MZAPC	Immigration

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

8: Special Leave Refused

2: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the May 2024 sittings.

Constitutional Law

ASF17 v Commonwealth of Australia

P7/2024: [2024] HCA 19

Judgment delivered: 10 May 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Immigration detention – Continuing detention – Where appellant citizen of Iran – Where appellant arrived in Australia as unlawful non-citizen and held in immigration detention under s 189(1) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Act") – Where appellant's application for Safe Haven Enterprise Visa refused and finally determined – Where s 198(6) of Act imposed duty upon officers of Department of Home Affairs to remove appellant from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable – Where s 196(1) of Act required appellant to be kept in immigration detention until removed from Australia – Where appellant refused to cooperate in administrative processes necessary to facilitate removal of appellant to Iran – Where no country identified where appellant might be removed other than Iran – Where appellant applied for writ of habeas corpus on basis that continuing detention exceeded constitutional limitation identified in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 – Whether continuing detention of appellant exceeds constitutional limitation identified in NZYQ – Whether real prospect of removal of appellant to Iran becoming practicable in reasonably foreseeable future.

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: [2024] HCAB 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia recently handed down judgments in several significant cases. In ASF17 v Commonwealth of Australia, the Court considered the constitutionality of the detention of an Iranian citizen under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the continued detention did not exceed the constitutional limitation identified in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.

In Cessnock City Council v 123 259 932 Pty Ltd, the Court addressed the issue of wasted expenditure in damages claims. The Court held that a plaintiff is entitled to recover wasted expenditure incurred in reliance on a defendant's contractual obligation where the defendant's breach has the effect that the expenditure was wasted.

In Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority v Director of National Parks, the Court considered whether a statutory corporation could be criminally liable for breaching a statute that prohibits carrying out work on a sacred site. The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the statutory corporation could be held criminally liable.

In Obian v The King, the Court examined whether a trial judge was permitted to consider material outside of two specified documents when deciding whether to allow evidence in reply. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was not limited to considering only the two specified documents.

In addition to these cases, the High Court heard several appeals and granted special leave in various cases, covering a range of legal topics including immigration, criminal law, and native title.

Orders