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
Vunilagi v The Queen & Anor	Constitutional Law
The King v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd formerly known as Sinclair Knight Merz	Criminal Law
Zurich Insurance Company Ltd & Anor v Koper & Anor	Practice and Procedure
Disorganized Developments Pty Ltd & Ors v State of South Australia	Statutes
CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman	Torts

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Karpik v Carnival PLC ARBN 107 998 443 & Anor	Contract
Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd & Ors v Campaigntrack Pty Ltd & Anor	Copyright
Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd & Anor v Begovic	Trade Practices

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
Lesianawai v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs	Immigration

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
AB (a pseudonym) & Anor v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission	Administrative Law
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen	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 August 2023 sittings.

Constitutional Law

Vunilagi v The Queen & Anor

C13/2022: [2023] HCA 24

Judgment delivered: 8 August 2023

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ

Catchwords:

Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Jurisdiction vested in Territory courts – Institutional integrity of Territory courts – Where s 68BA inserted into Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) in response to COVID-19 pandemic – Where s 68BA(3) allowed Supreme Court of Australian Capital Territory (“ACT”) to make order for trial by judge alone for previously excluded indictable offences if satisfied order would ensure orderly and expeditious discharge of Court business and in interests of justice – Where s 68BA(4) required judge to provide written notice of proposed order under s 68BA(3) – Where no requirement for election or consent by accused – Where Justice of Supreme Court proposed to and did order trial by judge alone despite appellant’s submissions opposing order – Where appellant tried and convicted under ss 54 and 60 of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – Whether s 68BA(4) substantially impaired institutional integrity of Territory courts as function conferred incompatible with position of Territory court as repository of federal jurisdiction.
Constitutional law (Cth) – Trial by jury – Where prior to self-government Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) picked up and applied in ACT as surrogate federal law – Where following self-government Commonwealth…

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.

Continue reading High Court Bulletin

Details

AGLC: High Court Bulletin [2023] HCAB 6
Case: [2023] HCAB 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vunilagi v The Queen & Anor is a case concerning the constitutional law in Australia. The appellant was convicted of indictable offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and was tried by a judge alone under section 68BA of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). The appellant argued that this was a breach of the institutional integrity of the Territory courts. The High Court held that section 68BA did not substantially impair the institutional integrity of the Territory courts. The court also held that sections 54 and 60 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) were laws of the Commonwealth within the meaning of section 80 of the Constitution. The court further held that there was no miscarriage of justice as the trial on indictment was not by jury contrary to section 80 of the Constitution.

The King v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd formerly known as Sinclair Knight Merz is a criminal law case. The respondent pleaded guilty to offences of conspiracy to cause the offer of provision of a bribe to a foreign public official contrary to sections 11.5 and 70.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The court held that section 70.2(5)(b) of the Criminal Code (Cth) required the value of the benefit obtained by the respondent to be determined as the sum of the amounts the respondent in fact received under the contracts secured by bribery. The court also held that a deduction could properly be made for any costs incurred in performing the contracts.

Zurich Insurance Company Ltd & Anor v Koper & Anor is a case concerning practice and procedure. The first respondent sought leave under the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) to bring proceedings against the appellant insurers in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court held that sections 9 and 10 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) had valid application to an initiating document issued by a State court relating to a civil proceeding in State jurisdiction. The court also held that the capacity of the Commonwealth Parliament to alter the scope and reach of State judicial power was not subject to an implied limitation derived from the Constitution.

Disorganized Developments Pty Ltd & Ors v State of South Australia is a case concerning statutes. The Criminal Law Consolidation (Criminal Organisations) Regulations 2015 (SA) declared a list of places to be "prescribed places". The Governor made two Regulations purporting to vary the 2015 Regulations to include blocks of land at Cowirra, South Australia. The appellants, owners and occupiers of the Cowirra land, argued that the Cowirra Regulations were not a valid exercise of the regulation-making power in section 370 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The High Court held that the Cowirra Regulations were a valid exercise of the regulation-making power and that the presumption of duty to afford procedural fairness was not displaced by the statute.

CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman is a case concerning torts. The appellant employer required the respondent to live in shared accommodation with another employee under the terms of the employment contract. The other employee negligently urinated on the respondent while he was sleeping, causing a cataplectic attack. The court held that the other employee's wrongful act was in the course or scope of employment and that the appellant employer was vicariously liable for the negligent act of the other employee.

Orders