Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 18 December 2009 32 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the High Court of Australia Library

[2009] HCAB 11 (18 December 2009)

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, and refused special leave to appeal.

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

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the December 2009 sittings.

ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth

High Court of Australia: [2009] HCA 51.

Judgment delivered: 9 December 2009.

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

Catchwords:

Constitutional law (Cth) — Powers of Commonwealth Parliament — Agreement between Commonwealth and a State — National Water CommissionAct 2004 (Cth) authorised Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of National Water Commission to enter into funding agreement with State — Whether CEO authorised to enter into funding agreement with State for purpose of State acquiring property on other than just terms — Whether legislative power conferred by s 96 of Constitution, or by s 96 with s 51(xxxvi), is subject to limitations contained in s 51(xxxi) — Relevance of distinction between coercive and non-coercive legislative power.
Constitutional law (Cth) — Powers of Commonwealth Parliament — Acquisition of property on just terms — Plaintiffs held bore licences under Water Act 1912 (NSW) (“Water Act”) — Plaintiffs' licences replaced with aquifer access licences under Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) — Whether Water Act divested common law rights with respect to extraction of groundwater — Whether plaintiffs' Water Act licences property within s 51(xxxi) of Constitution — Whether replacement of licences amounted to acquisition of property.
Words and phrases — “abstraction”, “acquisition”, “coercive and non-coercive power”, “control”, “just terms”, “property”, “the use and flow”.

This matter was brought in the original jurisdiction of the High Court.

Taiapa v The Queen

High Court of Australia: [2009] HCA 53.

Judgment delivered: 16 December 2009.

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

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Defences — Compulsion — Applicant convicted of possession of and trafficking in a dangerous drug — Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that evidence did not disclose a case fit for consideration by jury that there were reasonable grounds for applicant's belief that he was otherwise unable to escape the carrying out of the threat within the meaning of s 31(1)(d) of the Criminal Code (Q).
Words and phrases — “reasonable belief”.

Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2008] QCA 204.

Zheng v Cai

High Court of Australia: [2009] HCA 52.

Judgment delivered: 9 December 2009.

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

Catchwords:

Tort — Negligence — Damages — Motor vehicle accident — Personal injury — Assessment — Economic loss — Regular payments made by church to applicant following motor vehicle accident — Whether benevolent payments…

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: [2009] HCAB 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth was a case brought in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the National Water Commission had the authority under the National Water Commission Act 2004 (Cth) to enter into a funding agreement with a state for the purpose of acquiring property, and whether such actions were subject to the restrictions under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. The court also considered whether the legislative power conferred by section 96 of the Constitution, in conjunction with section 51(xxxvi), was subject to the limitations contained in section 51(xxxi). The court ruled that the CEO of the National Water Commission was indeed authorised to enter into such funding agreements with states, but the power was constrained by the requirements of section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, which mandates that property must be acquired on just terms. This case underscored the distinction between coercive and non-coercive legislative powers and how they interact with constitutional provisions.

Orders