Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 18 December 2023 55 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2023] HCAB 10 (18 December 2023)

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
NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs	Constitutional Law
Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd v Campaigntrack Pty Ltd	Copyright
Potts v National Australia Bank Limited	Corporations Law
Bromley v The King	Criminal Law
Huxley v The Queen	Criminal Practice
Karpik v Carnival PLC ARBN 107 998 443 & Anor	Trade Practices
Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd & Anor v Begovic	Trade Practices

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
AB (a pseudonym) & Anor v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission	Administrative Law
Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority v Director of National Parks (ABN 13 051 694 963) & Anor	Constitutional Law
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen	Immigration

4: Original Jurisdiction

HBSY Pty Ltd ACN 151 894 049 v Lewis & Anor

Courts

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Commonwealth of Australia v. Sanofi (formerly Sanofi-Aventis) & Ors	Damages
BQ v The King	Evidence
MDP v The King	Evidence
The Director of Public Prosecutions v Benjamin Roder (a pseudonym)	Evidence
Automotive Invest Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation	Taxation

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

Case	Title
Rehmat & Mehar Pty Ltd & Anor v Hortle	Constitutional Law

8: Special Leave Refused

2: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the December 2023 sittings.

Constitutional Law

NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor

S28/2023: [2023] HCA 37

Reasons delivered: 28 November 2023

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

Catchwords:

Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Immigration detention – Indefinite detention without judicial order – Where plaintiff stateless Rohingya Muslim having well-founded fear of persecution in Myanmar – Where plaintiff's bridging visa cancelled following criminal conviction – Where following release from criminal custody plaintiff taken into immigration detention under s 189 of Migration Act1958 (Cth) (“Act”) – Where plaintiff's application for protection visa refused and finally determined – Where ss 198(1) and 198(6) of Act imposed duty upon officers of Department administering Act to remove plaintiff from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable – Where s 196(1) of Act required plaintiff to be kept in immigration detention until removed from Australia, deported, or granted visa – Where attempts by Department to remove plaintiff from Australia unsuccessful as at date of hearing – Where no real prospect of removal of plaintiff from Australia becoming…

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: [2023] HCAB 10
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs was a case that involved constitutional law and immigration law. The plaintiff, a stateless Rohingya Muslim, was detained indefinitely without a judicial order. The plaintiff had a well-founded fear of persecution in Myanmar, and his bridging visa was cancelled following a criminal conviction. The plaintiff's application for a protection visa was refused, and he was taken into immigration detention. The plaintiff sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his detention was punitive and contrary to the Constitution. The court held that the detention of the plaintiff was not punitive and was reasonably capable of being seen as necessary for a legitimate and non-punitive purpose.

Potts v National Australia Bank Limited was a case that involved corporations law and proportionate liability. The appellant, the Chief Financial Officer and director of Dick Smith Holdings Ltd, was sued for misleading conduct by the National Australia Bank Ltd. The appellant raised proportionate liability defences, claiming that Dick Smith Holdings Ltd was a concurrent wrongdoer. The court held that the issue of whether a corporation engaged in misleading conduct by making representations in a document authorised by the board should be determined solely by reference to matters within the knowledge of the board, rather than by reference to any knowledge attributable to the corporation applying orthodox principles.

Bromley v The King was a case that involved criminal law and the reliability of witness evidence. The applicant, who was convicted of murder, applied for permission to appeal based on fresh psychiatric and psychological evidence. The court held that the fresh evidence was not compelling and did not meet the criteria for a second or subsequent appeal.

Huxley v The Queen was a case that involved criminal practice and directions to the jury. The appellant was tried with two co-accused and charged with murder, while the other two co-accused were charged with assault occasioning bodily harm and accessory after fact to murder or manslaughter. The trial judge gave a direction to the jury that the witness' evidence should not be used unless the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence was truthful, reliable, and accurate. The court held that the direction did not mislead the jury and did not constitute an error of law.

Karpik v Carnival PLC ARBN 107 998 443 & Anor was a case that involved trade practices and consumer protection. The company, which carried on business in Australia selling and marketing cruises, was sued for an unfair term in a contract of adhesion. The court held that the exclusive jurisdiction clause and class action waiver clause were unfair terms under the Australian Consumer Law and void.

Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd & Anor v Begovic was a case that involved trade practices and consumer protection. The appellants were sued for misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to a fuel consumption label on a vehicle. The court held that the appellants were not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct as they were required by law to apply the fuel consumption label.

Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd & Ors v Campaigntrack Pty Ltd & Anor was a case that involved copyright law and infringement. The plaintiff, the owner of a cloud-based real estate marketing system, sued the defendants for authorising copyright infringement in the development and use of a similar software. The court held that the defendants infringed copyright by authorising the infringing acts of others in developing and using the software.

In conclusion, these cases involved a range of legal issues, including constitutional law, corporations law, criminal law, trade practices, copyright law, and immigration law. The court's decisions in these cases provide guidance on the interpretation and application of the law in these areas.

Orders