High Court Bulletin
[2023] HCAB 4
High Court Bulletin
Produced by the Legal Research Officer,
High Court of Australia Library
[2023] HCAB 4 (19 May 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 |
| Attorney-General (Cth) v Huynh & Ors | Constitutional Law |
| QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor | Courts and Judges |
| BA v The King | Criminal Law |
| BDO v The Queen | Criminal Law |
3: Cases Reserved
| Case | Title |
| Bromley v The King | Criminal Law |
| Lang v The Queen | Criminal Law |
| McNamara v The King | Evidence |
| AZC20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Ors | Immigration |
| Qantas Airways Limited & Anor v Transport Workers Union of Australia | Industrial Law |
4: Original Jurisdiction
| Case | Title |
| Rehmat & Mehar Pty Ltd & Anor v Hortle | Constitutional Law |
5: Section 40 Removal
6: Special Leave Granted
| Case | Title |
| Tesseract International Pty Ltd v Pascale Construction Pty Ltd | Arbitration |
| Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority v Director of National Parks (ABN 13 051 694 963) & Anor | Constitutional Law |
| The King v Rohan (a pseudonym) | Criminal Law |
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 2023 sittings.
Constitutional Law
Attorney-General (Cth) v Huynh & Ors
S78/2022: [2023] HCA 13
Date of judgment: 10 May 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Jurisdiction vested in State courts – State laws applicable to offenders convicted of Commonwealth offences – Where s 78(1) of Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) ("CAR Act") permitted convicted person to apply to Supreme Court of New South Wales for inquiry into conviction or sentence – Where s 79(1)(a) of CAR Act permitted judge to direct an inquiry take place – Where s 79(1)(b) of CAR Act permitted judge to refer whole case to Court of Criminal Appeal to be dealt with as an appeal – Where convicted person applying under s 78(1) was convicted of Commonwealth offence – Whether ss 78 and 79 applied of own force to person convicted of Commonwealth offence – Whether s 68(1) of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) operated to apply ss 78(1), 79(1)(a) and 79(1)(b) of CAR Act to person convicted of Commonwealth offence – Whether ss 78(1) and 79(1)(b) of CAR Act could be applied independently of s 79(1)(a) without different legal operation – Whether ss 78(1) and 79(1)(b) of CAR Act impermissibly conferred on judge of State court acting in personal capacity a function without their consent – Whether ss 78(1) and 79(1)(b) of CAR Act impermissibly imposed administrative duty on holder of State statutory office without State legislative approval.
Words and phrases – "altered meaning", "Chief Justice or authorised judge", "Commonwealth offence", "different legal operation", "federal jurisdiction", "federal offence", "inquiry into conviction or sentence", "judicial power", "jurisdiction invested", "jurisdiction of State and Territory courts", "jurisdiction of the Supreme Court", "like jurisdiction", "non-judicial power", "persona designata", "pick up and apply", "prerogative of mercy", "referral to Court of Criminal Appeal", "severance".
Constitution, ss 51(xxxix), 76(ii), 77(iii).
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), ss 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 85, 86, 88, 114.
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5.
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 12, 15.
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 68, 79.
Appealed from NSWSC (CA): [2021] NSWCA 297; (2021) 107 NSWLR 75; (2021) 396 ALR 422; (2021) 293 A Crim R 392
Held: Appeal allowed.
Return to Top
Courts and Judges
QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor
M53/2022: [2023] HCA 15
Date of judgment: 17 May 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Courts and judges – Bias – Reasonable apprehension of bias – Where appellant appealed to Full Court of Federal Court of Australia from decision dismissing application for judicial review of non-revocation of decision to cancel his visa on character grounds – Where appellant sought recusal of judge sitting as member of Full Court constituted to hear appeal – Where reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of challenged judge said to arise from judge's appearance, in former capacity as Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, as counsel for Crown in opposition to appellant's appeal against conviction – Where appellant's conviction causally related to cancellation of visa and non-revocation decision subject to challenge in Full Court – Whether fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that judge might not be impartial – Whether reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of challenged judge vitiated Full Court's jurisdiction.
Courts and judges – Practice and procedure – Whether application to disqualify judge for bias should be determined in the first instance by challenged judge alone or by all members of court as constituted.
Words and phrases – "absence of bias", "actual bias", "apprehended bias", "character test", "disqualification", "fair-minded lay observer", "impartiality", "impartial mind", "independence", "judicial power", "judicial practice", "jurisdiction", "logical connection", "multi-member bench", "multi-member court", "objection to jurisdiction", "reasonable apprehension of bias", "recusal", "substantial criminal record".
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 25, 43.
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 11, 14, 15, 16, 25.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 476A, 500, 501, 501CA.
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2021] FCAFC 166; (2021) 287 FCR 328
Held: Appeal allowed with costs.
Return to Top
Criminal Law
BA v The King
S101/2022: [2023] HCA 14
Date of judgment: 10 May 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Criminal law – Appeal – Break and enter and commit serious indictable offence – Where appellant and complainant co tenants of apartment under Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) ("RT Act") – Where appellant had moved out and ceased paying rent – Where appellant, while still a co-tenant, entered apartment by breaking down locked door and assaulted complainant – Where appellant pleaded not guilty to "breaks and enters any dwelling-house ... and commits any serious indictable offence therein" in circumstances of aggravation under Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 112(2) – Where trial judge directed verdict of not guilty under s 112(2) because appellant had right to enter apartment under residential tenancy agreement – Whether person who "breaks and enters any dwelling-house" under s 112 must be trespasser without lawful authority to enter – Whether appellant had lawful authority to enter premises.
Landlord and Tenant – Whether right of occupation granted under residential tenancy agreement conditional upon tenant's purpose of entry being use of premises as residence – Whether no lawful authority to enter premises where entry made without consent of occupant – Whether right of exclusive possession under lease lost when co-tenant vacates premises but remains a lessee – Whether provisions of RT Act condition tenant's lawful authority to enter premises.
Words and phrases – "break and enter", "breaks", "burglary", "co-tenants", "consent", "damage to premises", "dwelling-house", "entry", "exclusive possession", "habitation", "lawful authority", "liberty to enter", "occupation", "purpose of entry", "residential tenancy agreement", "right of entry", "right of possession", "trespass", "trespasser".
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 4, 105A, 112, Pt 4 Div 4.
Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), ss 13(1), 51(1)(d), 79.
Appealed from NSWSC (CCA): [2021] NSWCCA 191; (2021) 105 NSWLR 307; (2021) 291 A Crim R 514
Held: Appeal allowed.
Return to Top
BDO v The Queen
B52/2022: [2023] HCA 16
Date of judgment: 17 May 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gordon, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Criminal Law – Rape – Appeal against conviction – Capacity – Where appellant charged with 15 counts of rape and one count of indecent treatment of child under 16 – Where conceded or reasonable doubt as to whether appellant over 14 years of age for five counts – Where Criminal Code (Qld), s 29(2) states presumption of incapacity of person under 14 years rebuttable by evidence of capacity to know person ought not do the act – Where presumption of incapacity rebuttable by evidence of knowledge of moral wrongness at common law applying RP v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 641 – Whether what is required by s 29(2) to rebut presumption of incapacity equated with what is required by common law – Whether reasonable doubt as to whether appellant over 14 years of age – Whether evidence of capacity sufficient to rebut presumption where applied to counts of which appellant convicted – Whether retrial should be ordered if evidence insufficient to rebut presumption of incapacity.
Words and phrases – "acquittal", "actual knowledge", "capacity to know", "criminal responsibility", "doli incapax", "indictment", "inference", "intellectual and moral development of child", "jury directions", "moral wrongness", "ordinary principles of reasonable people", "presumption of incapacity", "proof of capacity", "rape", "reasonable doubt", "rebut", "retrial", "serious wrongness".
Criminal Code (Qld), s 29.
Appealed from QLDSC (CA): [2021] QCA 220
Held: Appeal allowed with respect to counts 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8.
Return to Top
3: Cases Reserved
The following cases have been reserved or part heard by the High Court of Australia.
Civil Procedure
Zurich Insurance Company Ltd & Anor v Koper & Anor
S147/2022: [2023] HCATrans 42
Date heard: 13 April 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Civil procedure – Jurisdiction – Exercise of non-federal jurisdiction by State court – Service outside Australia – Service under Trans-Tasman Pacific Act 2010 (Cth) ("TTPA") – Where first respondent domiciled in New Zealand and registered proprietor of residential apartments designed and constructed by BMX NZ, entity incorporated in New Zealand, and without any assets or presence in Australia – Where BMX NZ insured by appellants under program of professional indemnity insurance – Where registered proprietors of apartments, commenced proceedings in High Court of New Zealand against BMX NZ and its principal, KNZ International Co Limited ("KNZ"), seeking damages in respect of various defects – Where damages awarded against BMX NZ and KNZ – Where, by summons filed on 1 April 2021 in Supreme Court of New South Wales, first respondent sought leave, pursuant to s 5 of Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) ("Claims Act"), to bring representative proceedings under s 4 against first appellant – Where s 4 provides if insured person has insured liability to person, that person ("claimant") may recover amount of insured liability from insurer in proceedings before court of New South Wales – Where primary judge granted leave, holding Claims Act could not apply where claimant's claim against insured person could not properly have been brought in court of New South Wales, but, even though first respondent's claim against BMZ NZ was claim against New Zealand company, without Australian assets, arising out of tort committed in New Zealand, first respondent could bring claim in reliance on Pt 2 of TTPA – Where Pt 2 of TTPA applies to "civil proceeding commenced in Australian court" – Where, pursuant to s 9 of TTPA, initiating document issued by Australian court that relates to civil proceeding may be served in New Zealand under Pt 2 – Whether ss 9 and 10 of TTPA can validly operate to authorise, or to deem as effective, service of process of State court outside territory of Commonwealth except in matters that engage federal jurisdiction – Whether first respondent could properly have brought claim against BMX NZ in connection with design or construction of apartments in court of New South Wales.
Constitutional law – Legislative power – Heads of power – External affairs – Service and execution of process throughout Commonwealth – Whether, having regard to terms of s 51(xxiv) and Ch III of Constitution, s 51(xxix) empowers Commonwealth Parliament to make laws with respect to service, outside Commonwealth, of process of State courts in matters that would not engage federal jurisdiction.
Appealed from NSWSC (CCA): [2022] NSWCA 128; (2022) 368 FLR 420
Return to Top
Constitutional Law
ENT19 v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor
S102/2022: [2022] HCATrans 214; [2023] HCATrans 26; [2023] HCATrans 28
Date heard: 8 December 2022; 14 and 15 March 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Constitutional law – Review of administrative decisions – Application for constitutional writs – Where plaintiff pleaded guilty to people smuggling and sentenced to imprisonment – Where, during sentencing, sentencing judge considered issue of general deterrence – Where plaintiff applied for Safe Haven Enterprise Visa ("SHEV") – Where Minister refused application for SHEV pursuant to s 65 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth), not being satisfied grant of visa in "national interest", being criterion set out in cl 790.227 of Sch 2 of Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) ("Decision") – Whether Decision made for punitive purpose or inflicts punishment – Whether acting in "national interest" permits Executive to act for punitive purpose or in way amounting to punishment.
Administrative law – Jurisdictional error – Procedural fairness – Where Minister took account of media coverage of plaintiff's conviction as part of reason why grant of SHEV not in national interest – Whether Minister failed to consider relevant consideration – Whether Minister proceeded on incorrect understanding of law.
Application for constitutional or other writ referred to the Full Court on 5 September 2022.
Return to Top
Hornsby Shire Council v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor
S202/2021: [2023] HCATrans 44; [2023] HCATrans 45
Date heard: 18 and 19 April 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Constitutional law – Taxation – Section 55 of Constitution – Laws imposing taxation only to deal with imposition of taxation – Where Commonwealth makes grants of financial assistance for local government purposes to States under s 9 of Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cth) – Where grants made on conditions specified in s 15 of Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act – Where conditions in s 15 amended by items 16, 17 and 18 of Sch 1 to Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Act 2000 (Cth) to include conditions that, if local government failed to pay Commonwealth GST payments, then: (1) State required to withhold amount allocated to local government and pay amount to Commonwealth (s 15(aa)); and, if Commonwealth Minister tells State Treasurer that Commonwealth Minister satisfied State failed to withhold and pay amount, State to repay Commonwealth amount determined by Commonwealth Minister (s 15(c)) – Whether items 16, 17 or 18 of Sch 1 to Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Act contrary to s 55 of Constitution.
Constitutional law – Taxation – Sections 114 of Constitution – Prohibition on Commonwealth taxes imposed on property of State – Where Commonwealth provides grants of financial assistance to States under Federal Finance Relations Act 2009 (Cth), including revenue assistance by way of goods and services tax ("GST") – Where Commonwealth provides grants of financial assistance for local government purposes to States under Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act – Where Intergovernmental Agreement Implementation (GST) Act 2000 (NSW) introduced to give effect to agreement between Commonwealth and States regarding GST whereby Commonwealth paid States GST revenue and States assumed responsibility for payment of financial assistance to local governments – Where plaintiff purchased vehicle, with purchase amount including GST, and subsequently sold vehicle through auction with GST deducted – Where plaintiff, under protest, reported amount of notional GST relating to sale of vehicle in Business Activity Statement, being form for GST returns lodged with Australian Taxation Officer – Whether provisions of Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act, Federal Financial Relations Act and of Intergovernmental Agreement Implementation (GST) Act impose tax on property belonging to plaintiff, contrary to s 114 of Constitution – Proper approach to relief.
Special case referred to the Full Court on 5 September 2022.
Return to Top
Vanderstock & Anor v The State of Victoria
M61/2021: [2023] HCATrans 7; [2023] HCATrans 10; [2023] HCATrans 11
Date heard: 14, 15 and 16 February 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Constitutional law – Duties of excise – Section 90 of Constitution – Exclusive power of Commonwealth Parliament – Where Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Act 2021 (Vic) ("ZLEV Act") defines "ZLEV" to mean any of following not excluded vehicles: (a) electric vehicle; (b) hydrogen vehicle; and (c) plug-in hybrid electric vehicle – Where s 7(1) of ZLEV Act requires registered operator of ZLEV to pay charge for use of ZLEV on specified roads – Whether s 7(1) of ZLEV Act invalid as imposing duty of excise within meaning of s 90 of Constitution – Whether ZLEV a tax on consumption of goods – Whether inland tax on consumption of goods a duty of excise within meaning of s 90 of Constitution.
Special case referred to the Full Court on 2 June 2022.
Return to Top
Vunilagi v The Queen & Anor
C13/2022: [2023] HCATrans 3; [2023] HCATrans 4
Date heard: 8 and 9 February 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Constitutional law – Powers of courts – Powers of Legislative Assembly of Australian Capital Territory – Trial by jury – Where appellant arrested and committed to trial – Where, following COVID-19 outbreak, Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) amended by COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 (ACT) to include s 68BA which provided, relevantly, Court may order trial by judge alone – Where appellant advised Chief Justice proposed making order pursuant to s 68BA – Where appellant and first respondent opposed making of order – Where s 68BA repealed, but continued to apply to appellant by operation of s 116 and 117 of Supreme Court Act – Where Chief Justice ordered appellant's trial to proceed by judge alone – Where appellant found guilty – Whether s 68BA contravened limitation deriving from Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 198 CLR 511 – Whether s 68BA inconsistent with requirement in s 80 of Constitution that trial on indictment of any offence against law of Commonwealth be by jury.
Appealed from ACTSC (CA): [2021] ACTCA 12; (2021) 17 ACTLR 72; (2021) 362 FLR 385; (2021) 295 A Crim R 168
Return to Top
Criminal Law
Bromley v The King
A40/2021: [2023] HCATrans 62; [2023] HCATrans 64
Date heard: 17 and 18 May 2023
Coram: Gageler ACJ, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Criminal law – Second or subsequent appeal – Further evidence – Where applicant and co-accused convicted of murder – Where, at trial, prosecution led evidence from eyewitness who suffered from schizoaffective disorder – Where applicant and co-accused appealed against convictions, including on ground that eyewitness's evidence unsafe, but appeals dismissed and subsequent petitions for mercy refused – Where applicant sought to appeal pursuant to s 353A of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) – Where s 353A empowers Full Court to hear second or subsequent appeal against conviction by person convicted on information if Court satisfied there "fresh and compelling evidence" that should, in "interests of justice", be considered on appeal – Where applicant adduced expert evidence concerning reliability of eyewitness in light of mental illness – Where Court of Appeal refused application, holding new evidence not "fresh" or "compelling", and not in "interests of justice" to consider new evidence – Whether new evidence "compelling" – Whether in "interests of justice" to consider applicant's evidence.
Appealed from SASC (FC): [2018] SASCFC 41
Return to Top
HCF v The Queen
B50/2022: [2023] HCATrans 43
Date heard: 14 April 2023
Coram: Gageler, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Criminal law – Miscarriage of justice – Juror misconduct – Application of proviso that no substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred – Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1) – Where juror disobeyed trial judge's directions that: (1) prohibited independent research; and (2) required discovery by other jurors of any such misconduct – Where sheriff investigated juror misconduct pursuant to s 70(7) of Jury Act 1995 (Qld) and produced report provided to parties before appeal heard – Whether substantial miscarriage of justice occasioned by proven disobedience by jurors of trial judge's direction – Whether verdicts of guilty were true for whole jury in circumstances where only five of twelve jurors responded to sheriff's investigation – Whether proviso applies where jury fails to obey judicial directions.
Appealed from QLDSC (CA): [2021] QCA 189
Return to Top
The King v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd formerly known as Sinclair Knight Merz
S148/2022: [2023] HCATrans 41
Date heard: 12 April 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Criminal law – Sentencing – Penalty – Bribery of foreign official – Meaning of "benefit" – Where respondent pleaded guilty to offence of conspiring to cause offer of provision benefits to be made to other persons not legitimately due to those persons, with intention of influencing foreign public officials in order to obtain or retain business, contrary to ss 11.5 and 70.2 of Criminal Code – Where maximum penalty determined by s 70.2(5) and relevantly provides: offence punishable by fine not more than greatest of: (1) 100,000 penalty units; (2) where court can determine value of benefit body corporate obtained and that is reasonably attributable to conduct constituting offence—3 times value that benefit – Where "benefit" obtained by respondent certain project contracts – Whether maximum penalty under second limb of s 70.2(5) calculated on basis that value of benefit of contract is: (1) contract price; or (2) contract price less (untainted) costs to offender
of performing it.
Appealed from NSWSC (CCA): [2022] NSWCCA 152; (2022) 108 NSWLR 377; (2022) 367 FLR 365
Return to Top
Lang v The Queen
B57/2022: [2023] HCATrans 60
Date heard: 12 May 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Criminal law – Unreasonable verdict – Appeal against murder conviction – Where deceased died from knife wound to abdomen – Where hypothesis raised that deceased had committed suicide – Where pathologist expressed opinion that deceased's wound more likely to have been caused by second person than to have been self-inflicted – Whether guilty verdict unreasonable as, on whole of evidence, there reasonable possibility deceased committed suicide – Whether pathologist's opinion inadmissible because not an opinion based on expert knowledge – Lies – Consciousness of guilt – Whether alleged lie capable of overcoming improbabilities in Crown case.
Appealed from QLDSC (CA): [2022] QCA 29
Return to Top
Evidence
McNamara v The King
S143/2022: [2023] HCATrans 61
Date heard: 16 May 2023
Coram: Gageler ACJ, Gordon, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Evidence – Unfair prejudice – Meaning of "party" – Joint trial – Co‑accused – Where appellant and co-accused arraigned upon joint indictment that alleged one count of murder and one count of supply of commercial quantity of prohibited drug – Where Crown alleged that, pursuant to joint criminal enterprise, appellant and co-accused murdered deceased and dispossessed deceased of drugs – Where appellant sought to introduce evidence relevant to defence of duress and existence of joint criminal enterprise, namely evidence co‑accused said to appellant "I did [deceased]" and evidence co‑accused told appellant of other serious crimes co-accused committed – Where evidence excluded on basis that, though relevant under s 55 of Evidence Act 1994 (NSW), probative value of evidence substantially outweighed by danger evidence might be "unfairly prejudicial to party" under s 135(a) of Evidence Act, namely to co‑accused – Whether word "party" in s 135(a) of Evidence Act 1994 (NSW) extends to and includes co-accused in joint trial.
Appealed from NSWSC (CCA): [2021] NSWCCA 160; (2021) 290 A Crim R 239
Return to Top
Immigration
AZC20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Ors
M84/2022; M85/2022: [2023] HCATrans 59
Date heard: 11 May 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ
Catchwords:
Immigration – Detention – Regional processing – Where appellant in immigration detention since 15 July 2013 – Where appellant required to be taken to regional processing country as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198AD of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where primary judge found it reasonably practicable to take appellant to regional processing country no later than end of September 2013 and, consequently, there had been "extensive" and "unwarranted delay" in removing appellant – Where primary judge made order compelling end of appellant's detention by causing appellant to be taken from Australia under s 196 of Migration Act ("mandamus order") – Where primary judge ordered appellant be detained in home only for so long as it took for appellant to be taken to regional processing country in accordance with mandamus order ("order 3") – Where order 3 suspended, coming into effect only if, after 14 days, respondents failed to take appellant to regional processing country – Where, hours before order 3 due to come into effect, only available regional processing country rejected appellant and Minister exercised personal, non-compellable power under s 198AE of Migration Act to disapply s 198AD to appellant – Where appellant remains in detention centre – Where Full Court granted leave to appeal from orders 3-5 of primary judge's orders – Whether order 3 satisfies temporal and/or purposive element of para (a) of definition of "immigration detention" in s 5 of Migration Act, whereby immigration detention means being in company of, and restrained by, an officer or another prescribed person.
Constitutional law – Chapter III – Courts and judges – Appeal from interlocutory order – Where s 24(1A) of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) requires leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment – Where ss 22 and 23 respectively confer power on Court to grant all remedies to which any party appears entitled and power to issue writs of such kinds as Court considers appropriate – Whether there "matter" within meaning of Chapter III of Constitution – Whether Full Court erred in granting leave to appeal from order 3 – Whether, in circumstances order 3 not come into execution, Full Court erred in granting leave without considering "substantial injustice" test.
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2022] FCAFC 52; (2022) 290 FCR 149
Return to Top
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Thornton
B42/2022: [2023] HCATrans 23
Date heard: 8 March 2023
Coram: Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Immigration – Visa cancellation decision under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Substantial criminal record – Where respondent's visa mandatorily cancelled following conviction for assaults occasioning bodily harm and for other offences, for which respondent sentenced to concurrent periods of imprisonment – Where respondent sought revocation of cancellation decision – Where Minister, in considering whether "another reason" why cancellation decision be revoked (s 501CA(4)(b)(ii)), took into account respondent's criminal history, including convictions which Queensland Court ordered that there be "no conviction" – Where s 184(2) of Youth Justice Act 1992 (QLD) ("YJA") provides, in relation to recording of convictions against child, finding of guilt without recording conviction not taken to be conviction for any purpose – Where s 85ZR(2) of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ("CA") provides where, under State law person to be taken to never been convicted of offence under law of State, person shall be taken in corresponding circumstances or for corresponding purpose, by any Commonwealth authority, never to have been convicted of offence – Whether, on proper construction of s 184(2) of YJA, s 85ZR(2) of CA engaged – Whether Minister took into account irrelevant consideration.
Administrative law – Judicial review – Jurisdictional error – Irrelevant consideration – Materiality – Whether consideration of irrelevant consideration material.
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2022] FCAFC 23; (2022) 288 FCR 10; (2022) 295 A Crim R 398
Return to Top
Industrial Law
Qantas Airways Limited & Anor v Transport Workers Union of Australia
S153/2022: [2023] HCATrans 54; [2023] HCATrans 56
Date heard: 9 and 10 May 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Industrial law – Adverse action – Workplace right – Whether prohibition s 340(1)(b) only prohibits adverse action taken to prevent exercise of presently existing "workplace right" – Where first appellant made decision to outsource ground operations at 10 airports to third party providers – Where primary judge found outsourcing decision contravened s 340(1)(b) of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – Where, at time of outsourcing decision, one relevant enterprise agreement had not yet reached its nominal expiry date and no process of bargaining for replacement had been initiated, and another enterprise agreement had reached nominal expiry date and process of bargaining had commenced, but no process for protected industrial action been initiated – Where primary judge held first appellant contravened s 340(1)(b), finding first appellant had not discharged reverse onus under s 360(1) of establishing first appellant had not made outsourcing decision to prevent affected employees from exercising workplace rights to organise and engage in protected industrial action.
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2022] FCAFC 71; (2022) 292 FCR 34; (2022) 402 ALR 1; (2022) 315 IR 1
Return to Top
Leases and Tenancies
Young & Anor v Chief Executive Officer (Housing)
D5/2022: [2023] HCATrans 30
Date heard: 16 March 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman and Gleeson JJ
Catchwords:
Leases and tenancies – Residential tenancies – Damages for distress and disappointment – Where Ms Young leased home from respondent – Where home without font door in doorframe for 68 months – Where appellants commenced proceedings in Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") seeking compensation under s 122(1) of Residential Tenancies Act 1999 (NT) ("RTA") for breach of landlord's obligations to repair premises (s 57 of RTA), to provide reasonably secure home (s 49 RTA) or, alternatively, to ensure premises "habitable" (s 48 of RTA) – Where Tribunal found landlord failed to comply with obligation of repair (s 57) and awarded $100 compensation – Where Supreme Court set aside Tribunal's decision, holding failure to install door fundamental breach of respondent's obligation to provide reasonably secure premises, and awarded $10,200 compensation for resulting disappointment and distress for period of 68 months – Where Court of Appeal allowed appeal, determining only compensation for disappointment and distress resulting from physical inconvenience recoverable – Whether to recover damages for emotional disturbance or "mental distress" claim brought under s 122 of RTA it necessary to apply principles of remoteness and foreseeability – Whether claim for compensation for emotional disturbance of "mental distress" able to be founded on breach of s 49.
Appealed from NT (CA): [2022] NTCA 1
Return to Top
Statutes
Disorganized Developments Pty Ltd & Ors v State of South Australia
A22/2022: [2023] HCATrans 25
Date heard: 10 March 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Statutes – Interpretation – Invalidity – Where s 83GD(1) in Pt 3B, Div 2 of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ("CLCA") provides person who participant in criminal organisation and enters, or attempts to enter, "prescribed place" commits offence – Where s 83GA(1) defines "prescribed place" as place declared by regulation, but s 83GA(2) requires regulation under subsection (1) to "only relate to … 1 place" – Where appellants became registered proprietors of land ("Cowirra Land") – Where Pt 3B, Div 2 of CLCA inserted by Statutes Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act 2015 (SA) ("Amending Act") – Where s 13 of Amending Act provided Criminal Law Consolidation (Criminal Organisations) Regulations 2015 ("CLCR") (set out in Sch 1) be regulations under CLCA – Where cl 3 of Sch 1 of Amending Act declared places to be prescribed places, but not Cowirra Land – Where Governor in Council subsequently made Criminal Law Consolidation (Criminal Organisations) (Prescribed Place – Cowirra) Variation Regulations 2020 ("Cowirra (No.1) Regulations") and Criminal Law Consolidation (Criminal Organisations) (Prescribed Place – Cowirra) (No 2) Variation Regulations 2020 ("Cowirra (No.2) Regulations") – Where Cowirra (No.1) Regulations and Cowirra (No.2) Regulations sought to vary r 3 of CLCR to add Cowirra Land as prescribed place – Whether r 3 of CLCR beyond power conferred by s 83GA(2) of CLCA – Whether Cowirra (No.1) Regulations and Cowirra (No.2) Regulations invalid because of absence of procedural fairness accorded – Whether, if Cowirra (No.1) Regulations and Cowirra (No.2) Regulations valid, s 83GD of CLCA applies to owner of land declared to be "prescribed place", director of corporation which is owner of land or any person authorised to access land.
Appealed from SASC (CA): [2022] SASCA 6; (2022) 140 SASR 206; (2022) 295 A Crim R 351
Return to Top
Torts
CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman
B43/2022: [2023] HCATrans 24
Date heard: 9 March 2023
Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Torts – Vicarious liability – Scope of employment – Opportunity or occasion for commission of tort – Where respondent asleep in appellant's staff accommodation when another employee urinated on face – Where trial judge concluded event exacerbated respondent's pre-existing conditions of narcolepsy and cataplexy, and suffered post-traumatic stress and adjustment disorder as result – Where respondent sued employer, alleging, relevantly, employee committed tort for which appellant, as employer, vicariously liable – Where primary judge found employee's act tortious, but concluded tort not committed in course of employee's employment – Where Court of Appeal applied Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC (2016) 258 CLR 134, holding employee occupying room as employee pursuant to obligations of employment contract and therefore requisite connection between employment and employee's actions – Whether event giving rise to respondent's injury within "course or scope of employment" – Proper approach to scope of vicarious liability discussed in Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC.
Appealed from QLDSC (CA): [2022] QCA 38; (2022) 10 QR 310
Return to Top
4: Original Jurisdiction
The following cases are ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia.
Constitutional law
Jones v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors
B47/2022
Catchwords:
Constitutional law – Powers of Commonwealth Parliament – Power to make laws with respect to naturalisation and aliens – Cessation of Australian citizenship – Where s 34(2) of Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) ("2007 Citizenship Act") provides Minister for Home Affairs may revoke person's Australian citizenship where, relevantly, person has, after making application to become Australian citizen, been convicted of serious offence (s 34(2)(b)(ii)), and Minister satisfied that it contrary to public interest for person to remain Australian citizen – Where, by operation of transitional provisions, s 34(2)(b)(ii) applies as if it also referred to person's conviction, at any time after person made application for certificate Australian citizenship under Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth), of offence that person committed at any time before grant of certificate – Where plaintiff citizen of United Kingdom by birth and became Australian citizen in December 1988 – Where plaintiff convicted of offences contrary to Queensland laws – Where Minister revoked plaintiff's citizenship, relying on s 34(2)(b)(ii) of 2007 Citizenship Act – Whether s 34(2)(b)(ii) supported by s 51(xix) of Constitution.
Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Whether s 34(2)(b)(ii) contrary to Ch III of Constitution – Whether s 34(2)(b)(ii) invalid for conferring upon Minister exclusively judicial function of adjudging and punishing criminal guilt.
Special case referred to the Full Court on 3 April 2023.
Return to Top
Rehmat & Mehar Pty Ltd & Anor v Hortle
M16/2023
Catchwords:
Constitutional law – Powers of Commonwealth Parliament – States – Inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws – Where first plaintiff operated restaurant in Victoria – Where Victorian Parliament passed Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009 (Vic) ("Referral Act"), referring matters to Commonwealth Parliament for purposes of s 51(xxxvii) of Constitution – Where Commonwealth Parliament passed Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – Where matters referred under Referral Act included administration of, inspection of, and enforcement of terms and conditions of employment for national system employers, covered under Fair Work Act – Where Restaurant Industry Award made under Fair Work Act and first plaintiff's employees subject to Award – Where Victorian Parliament passed Wage Theft Act 2020 (Vic) – Where defendant Commissioner of Wage Inspectorate Victoria, appointed under Wage Theft Act – Where defendant, following investigation, filed charges against first plaintiff alleging contravention of Wage Theft Act for non-payment of entitlements allegedly payable under Award – Whether Fair Work Act intended to be exhaustive statement of law applicable to national system employers – Whether there exists alteration, impairment, detraction and/or collision between Wage Theft Act and Fair Work Act – Whether Wage Theft Act invalid by operation of s 109 of Constitution to extent of inconsistency.
Demurrer referred to the Full Court on 22 May 2023.
5: Section 40 Removal
The following cases are ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia.
Constitutional Law
Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor
M90/2022: [2023] HCATrans 20
Catchwords:
Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Cessation of Australian citizenship – Where s 36D of Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) provided Minister for Home Affairs may make determination that person ceases to be Australian citizen if satisfied, among other matters, that person convicted of specified offences in s 36D(5) and that it contrary to public interest for person to remain Australian citizen – Where applicant citizen of Algeria and Australia – Where applicant convicted of offences under ss 102.3(1) (intentionally being member of terrorist organisation), 102.2(1) (intentionally directing activities of terrorist organisation) and 101.4(1) (possession of thing connected with preparation for terrorist act) of Criminal Code (Cth) – Where provisions s 36D(5) that enlivened power to make determination under s 36D included offences against ss 102.3(1), 102.2(1) and 101.4(1) of Criminal Code – Where Minister determined, pursuant to s 36D(1), that applicant ceased to be Australian citizen – Whether s 36D contrary to Ch III of Constitution – Whether s 36D invalid for conferring upon Minister exclusively judicial function of adjudging and punishing criminal guilt.
Special case referred to Full Court on 23 February 2023.
Return to Top
6: Special Leave Granted
The following cases have been granted special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
Arbitration
Tesseract International Pty Ltd v Pascale Construction Pty Ltd
A26/2022: [2023] HCATrans 65
Date heard: 19 May 2023 – Special leave granted
Catchwords:
Arbitration – Arbitral proceedings – Powers and duties of arbitrator – Where respondent subcontracted with applicant – Where applicant agreed to provide engineering consultancy services to respondent in relation to design and construction of warehouse – Where, under contract, if dispute between applicant and respondent arose, dispute could be submitted to arbitration – Where dispute arose where respondent alleged applicant breached various terms of contract, breached duty of care in negligence and involved in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 of Australian Consumer Law – Where applicant denied allegations, but pleaded in alternative that any damages payable should be reduced by reason of proportionate liability provisions under Part 3 of Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 (SA) and Part VIA of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (collectively "proportionate liability regimes") – Whether proportionate liability regimes amenable to arbitration – Whether s 28 of Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (SA) empowers arbitrator to apply proportionate liability regimes, or whether terms of legislation preclude arbitrator from doing so – Whether implied power conferred on arbitrator to determine parties' dispute empowers arbitrator to apply proportionate liability regimes, or whether terms of legislation preclude arbitrator from doing so.
Appealed from SASC (CA): [2022] SASCA 107; (2022) 140 SASR 395; (2022) 406 ALR 293
Return to Top
Civil Procedure
GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore
S150/2022: [2022] HCATrans 206
Date heard: 18 November 2022 – Special leave granted
Catchwords:
Civil procedure – Stay of proceedings – Fair trial – Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 67 Abuse of process – Where appellant claims to have been sexually assaulted by priest of Roman Catholic Diocese of Lismore – Where appellant instituted proceedings on 31 January 2020 against respondent, a statutory corporation, on bases of negligence and vicarious liability – Where priest died in 1996 – Where primary judge satisfied material showed that there likely to be evidence available allowing fair trial between parties – Where respondent sought permanent stay of proceedings – Where primary judge refused stay, but decision reversed by Court of Appeal – Where Court of Appeal considered fair trial could not be had in circumstances where priest unavailable to give factual instructions and respondent had not been notified of claims before priest's death – Whether proceedings ought to be stayed on basis that fair trial could no longer be had such that proceedings an abuse of process.
Appealed from NSWSC (CA): [2022] NSWCA 78
Return to Top
Constitutional Law
Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority v Director of National Parks (ABN 13 051 694 963) & Anor
D7/2022: [2023] HCATrans 68
Date heard: 19 May 2023 – Special leave granted
Catchwords:
Constitutional law – Territories – Territory crown – Crown immunity – Where s 34(1) of Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT) ("Sacred Sites Act") prescribes offence and penalty for carrying out work on sacred site – Where Director of National Parks arranged for contractor to perform work on walking track at Gunlom Falls, in Kakadu National Park in Northern Territory – Where track works in area amounting to "sacred site" – Where Director is corporation sole with perpetual succession established by s 15 of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 (Cth) and continued in existence as body corporate by s 514A of Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) – Whether s 34(1) of Sacred Sites Act applies to Director.
Statutory interpretation – Statutory presumption – Presumption against imposition of criminal liability on executive – Where presumption considered in Cain v Doyle (1946) 72 CLR 409 – Proper approach to scope of presumption in Cain v Doyle – Whether presumption in Cain v Doyle applies to statutory corporations – Whether Sacred Sites Act expresses intention to apply to persons or bodies corporate associated with Commonwealth.
Appealed from NTSC (FC): [2022] NTSCFC 1
Return to Top
Crime and Corruption Commission v Carne
B66/2022: [2022] HCATrans 225
Date heard: 15 December 2022 – Special leave granted
Catchwords:
Constitutional law – Legislature – Privileges – Privilege of parliamentary debate and proceedings – Where Crime and Corruption Commission ("Commission") received complaint as to allegations of corrupt conduct against respondent, former Public Trustee of Queensland – Where, following investigation, Commission prepared draft report, which did not make any finding of corrupt conduct – Where Commission submitted copy of Report to Chair of Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Committee ("PCCC") and requested, pursuant to s 69(1)(b) of Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) ("CC Act"), that it be given to Speaker – Where respondent filed originating application seeking declaration that report was not "report" for purposes of s 69(1) of CC Act – Where Chair of PCCC issued evidentiary certificate under s 55 of Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld) ("POQ Act") certifying report as: document prepared for purpose of, or incidental to, transacting business of PCCC under s 9(2)(c) of CC Act; and document present or submitted to PCCC – Where s 8(1) of POQ Act provides proceedings in Assembly cannot be impeached or questioned in any court – Whether parliamentary privilege protects reports prepared for and provided to parliamentary committees under POQ Act.
Statutes – Acts of Parliament – Interpretation – Where s 33 of CC Act provides for Commission's corruption functions – Where s 64 of CC Act provides Commission may report in performing its functions – Where s 69(1) provides report may be tabled in Parliament when report is made on a public hearing or report is directed to be given to Speaker – Where respondent contended that because report did not make finding of "corrupt conduct" and did not relate to public hearing, it was not report for purposes of s 69 of CC Act – Whether Commission only able to report about corruption investigation under CC Act where positive finding of "corrupt conduct".
Appealed from QLDSC (CA): [2022] QCA 141; (2022) 405 ALR 166
Return to Top
Contract
Karpik v Carnival PLC ARBN 107 998 443 & Anor
S25/2023: [2023] HCATrans 33
Date heard: 17 March 2023 – Special leave granted
Catchwords:
Contract – Construction – Class action waiver clause – Exclusive jurisdiction clause – Where representative proceedings brought under Pt IVA of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ("FCA Act") against owner of cruise ship, Ruby Princess – Where class consisted of parties to either Australian terms and conditions, US terms and conditions or UK terms and conditions – Where US terms and conditions contained class action waiver clause, exclusive jurisdiction clause, and choice of law clause – Where Federal Court asked to determine whether US terms and conditions incorporated into Mr Ho's contract and whether claim should in effect be stayed – Proper approach to construction of clauses.
Trade practices – Consumer law – Unfair terms – Australian Consumer Law ("ACL"), s 23 – Where primary judge held s 5(1)(g) of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) extends operation of s 23 of ACL to "engaging in conduct outside Australia… by bodies corporate… carrying on business in Australia" – Whether extraterritorial scope of s 23 of ACL applied to Mr Ho's contract with second respondent – Whether class action waiver clause in Mr Ho's contract void or unenforceable under s 23 of ACL.
Private international law – Enforcement – Exclusive jurisdiction clause – Where US terms and conditions contained exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of US courts – Whether Mr Ho's claim ought to be stayed pursuant to exclusive jurisdiction clause.
Representative proceedings – Class action – Waiver clause – Enforceability – Where primary judge and majority of Full Court held, because Pt IVA permissive, as group members can opt out under s 33J of FCA Act, parties are free to contractually waive right to participate in representative proceeding – Whether class action waiver clause in Mr Ho's contract void or unenforceable for being contrary to Pt IVA of FCA Act.
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2022] FCAFC 149; (2022) 404 ALR 386; (2022) 163 ACSR 119
Return to Top
Copyright
Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd & Ors v Campaigntrack Pty Ltd & Anor
S137/2023: [2022] HCATrans 13
Date heard: 17 February 2023 – Special leave granted
Catchwords:
Copyright – Infringement – Authorisation – Where s 36(1) of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) provides copyright infringed by person who, not being owner of copyright, and without licence of owner, does in Australia, or "authorizes" doing in Australia of, any act comprised in copyright – Where s 36(1A) of Copyright Act sets out matters that must be taken into account in determining s 36(1) – Where Full Court found first, second, fifth and sixth applicants infringed copyright in works by authorising infringements of second respondent and other developers in developing system, and by authorising infringements of users in using system – Where Full Court found third and fourth respondents infringed copyright in works by authorising infringements of second respondent – Proper approach to construction of "authorizes" in s 36(1) of Copyright Act – Whether finding of authorisation of infringement of copyright under s 36(1) of Copyright Act requires mental element – Whether authorisation under s 36(1) of Copyright Act may be imposed on persons by imputing to them indifference on account of failure to inquire about supposed infringement.
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2022] FCAFC 112; (2022) 292 FCR 512; (2022) 402 ALR 576; (2022) 167 IPR 411
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2022] FCAFC 121
Return to Top
Corporations Law
Potts & Anor v DSHE Holdings Ltd ACN 166 237 841 (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) & Ors; Potts v National Australia Bank Limited (ABN 12 004 044 937)
S47/2023; S48/2023: [2023] HCATrans 48
Date heard: 21 April 2023 – Special leave granted (S47/2023); Special leave granted on limited grounds (S48/2023)
Catchwords:
Corporations law – Compensation orders – Breach of directors' duties – Damage – Where directors found to have breached s 180 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by voting in favour of payment of dividends – Where s 254T sets out circumstances in which dividend may be paid – Where s 1317H provides Court may order person to compensate corporation if person contravened corporation civil penalty provision and "damage resulted from contravention" – Whether payment by Dick Smith Holdings Ltd ("DSH") of dividend constitutes damage which resulted from contravention of s 180 within meaning of s 1317H – Whether, when assessing compensation under s 1317H for damage company suffered by contravention of s 180(1), Court must have regard to normative considerations in addition to considering "but for" causation – Whether, when assessing compensation under s 1317H for damage which company has suffered by contravention of s 180(1), dividend paid to shareholders is "damage" suffered by company within meaning of s 1317H where no breach of s 254T.
Corporations law – Proportionate liability – Where appellant Chief Financial Officer and director of DSH – Where National Australia Bank Ltd ("NAB") became DSH's financier after entering into Syndicated Facility Agreement ("SFA") – Where SFA contained representation as to accuracy of information provided by DSH to NAB – Where NAB relied on three causes of action for misleading conduct and appellant raised proportionate liability defences under ss 87CB of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), 1041L of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and 12GP of Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), claiming DSH concurrent wrongdoer – Whether DSH concurrent wrongdoer – Whether, when determining if corporation, having regard to matters within its knowledge, engaged in misleading conduct by making representations in document authorised by board, issue should be determined solely by reference to matters within knowledge of board, rather than by reference to any knowledge attributable to corporation applying orthodox principles – Whether, when determining if corporation engaged in misleading conduct by making representations in document authorised by board, appropriate to exclude from consideration matters known to a particular member of board against whom allegations of misleading conduct been made, but not established.
Appealed from NSWSC (CA): [2022] NSWCA 165; (2022) 371 FLR 349; (2022) 405 ALR 70; (2022) 163 ACSR 23
Return to Top
Criminal Law
Hurt v The King; Delzotto v The King
C7/2023; C8/2023; S41/2023: [2023] HCATrans 52
Date heard: 21 April 2023 – Special leave granted
Catchwords:
Criminal law – Sentencing – Mandatory minimum sentences – Sentencing discretion – Where s 16AAB of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) imposes minimum sentences for certain offences – Whether minimum sentence to be regarded as base of range of appropriate sentence or minimum permissible sentence – Proper approach to minimum sentences – Whether proper approach involves sentencing judge having regard to minimum from outset as prescribing bottom of range of appropriate sentence, consistent with Bahar v The Queen (2011) 45 WAR 100 – Whether proper approach involves sentencing judge exercising sentencing discretion in usual way and only if proposed sentence falls below minimum penalty that minimum penalty has effect, consistent with approach in R v Pot, Wetangky and Lande (Supreme Court (NT), 18 January 2011, unrep).
Appealed from ACTSC (CA) (C25/2022; C26/2022): [2022] ACTCA 49; (2022) 18 ACTLR 272; (2022) 372 FLR 312
Appealed from NSWSC (CCA): [2022] NSWCCA 117; (2022) 108 NSWLR 96
Return to Top
Huxley v The Queen
B19/2023: [2023] HCATrans 36
Date heard: 17 March 2023 – Special leave granted on limited grounds
Catchwords:
Criminal law – Jury direction – Witness evidence – Joint trial – Where appellant convicted by jury for murder after being charged on joint indictment which charged three others – Where direction given to jury in relation to witness' evidence – Where witness' evidence central to co-accused's case and relevant to appellant's – Where direction made that jury should only act upon witness' evidence if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that evidence truthful, reliable and accurate – Whether jury direction, that witness' evidence in joint trial can only be used by jury if satisfied evidence of witness truthful, reliable and accurate beyond reasonable doubt, constituted miscarriage of justice.
Appealed from QLDSC (CA): [2021] QCA 78
Return to Top
The King v Rohan (a pseudonym)
M76/2022: [2023] HCATrans 66
Date heard: 19 May 2023 – Special leave granted
Catchwords:
Criminal law – Liability – Primary – Derivative – Where s 323(1)(c) of Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) provides that person is involved in commission of offence if person enters into agreement, arrangement or understanding with another person to commit offence – Where respondent jointly charged with co-offenders – Where respondent and co-offenders each found guilty by jury verdict, relevantly, of two charges of supplying drug of dependence to child (charges 1 and 2) (in relation to two complainants) and seven charges of sexual penetration of child under 12 (including charges 3, 7, 8 and 9) (in relation to one complainant) – Where Court of Appeal held respondent suffered substantial miscarriage of justice on charges 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9, because jury not directed that it needed to be satisfied to criminal standard that respondent knew relevant complainants were under statutory prescribed age when respondent agreed with co-offenders that he would engage in criminal act – Whether, on proper construction, implied into s 323(1)(c) should be words "intentionally" and "knowing or believing facts that make proposed conduct offence".
Appealed from VSC (CA): [2022] VSCA 215
Return to Top
Restitution
Redland City Council v Kozik & Ors
B17/2023: [2023] HCATrans 34
Date heard: 17 March 2023 – Special leave granted
Catchwords:
Restitution – Unjust enrichment – Payment of public impost – Mistake of law – Restitutionary defence in public law – Where respondents plaintiffs in representative action against appellant seeking recovery of monies paid as ratepayers for charges wrongly levied by appellant – Where appellant accepts charges wrongly levied, but refuses to repay amount of charges expended for particular benefit of group of ratepayers – Where primary judge held appellant unable to raise restitutionary defences in circumstances where plaintiffs' claims brought as cause of action in debt and no contractual relationship arose – Where Court of Appeal majority found restitution claims available in circumstances where monies paid under invalid laws, but that ratepayers could not be considered to be unjustly enriched by repayment of monies – Whether defence of unjust enrichment available where payment of public impost made under mistake of law – Whether defence of unjust enrichment available where, though wrongly levied, charges expended to special benefit of group – Whether defence of unjust enrichment to be framed by reference to contractual principles of failure of consideration or by reference to material benefit derived.
Appealed from QLDSC (CA): [2022] QCA 158; (2022) 252 LGERA 315
Return to Top
Statutes
Harvey & Ors v Minister for Primary Industry and Resources & Ors
D9/2022: [2022] HCATrans 229
Date heard: 16 December 2022 – Special leave granted
Catchwords:
Statutes – Interpretation – Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), s 24MD(6B)(b) – Meaning of "right to mine" – Meaning of "infrastructure facility" – Where first respondent intended to grant mineral lease (ML 29881) to third respondent under s 40(1)(b)(ii) of Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT) – Where land subject to proposed lease would be used for construction of "dredge spoil emplacement area" to deposit dredged material from loading facility located on adjacent land subject to mineral lease already held by third respondent –Whether proposed grant of ML 29881 is future act within s 24MD(6B)(b) of Native Title Act, being creation of right to mine for sole purpose of construction of infrastructure facility associated with mining.
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2022] FCAFC 66; (2022) 291 FCR 263; (2022) 401 ALR 578
Return to Top
Trade Practices
Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd & Anor v Begovic
M17/2023: [2023] HCATrans 15
Date heard: 17 February 2023 – Special leave granted
Catchwords:
Trade practices – Misleading or deceptive conduct – Where fuel consumption label affixed to new vehicle offered for sale – Where affixing of label required by Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 (Cth) and Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 81/02 – Fuel Consumption Labelling for Light Vehicles) 2008 ("Standard") – Where label displayed fuel consumption figures derived from standard testing of vehicle type – Where purchased vehicle unable to substantially achieve label figures under standard test – Where Court of Appeal held found label conveyed particular representation that fuel consumption figures substantially replicable in purchased vehicle ("testing replicability representation") – Where Court of Appeal found affixing of fuel consumption label to respondent's vehicle, and presenting and offering vehicle for sale with label affixed, appellants engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 of Australian Consumer Law – Whether fuel consumption label made testing replicability representation – Whether conduct required by Standard can give rise to contravention of s 18 of Australian Consumer Law.
Appealed from VSC (CA): [2022] VSCA 155; (2022) 403 ALR 558; (2022) 101 MVR 95
Return to Top
7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
Return to Top
8: Special Leave Refused
Publication of Reasons: 11 May 2023 (Canberra)
| No. |
| Respondent | Court appealed from | Result |
| 1. | CCT | The King | Supreme Court of Queensland [2021] QCA 278 | Application dismissed |
| 2. | Burke | State of Queensland | Supreme Court of Queensland | Application dismissed |
| 3. | P6/2023 | State of Western Australia | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Application dismissed |
| 4. | Mahommed | Westpac Banking Corporation Limited & Ors | Supreme Court of | Application dismissed |
| 5. | Athans | The King | Supreme Court of | Application dismissed |
| 6. | Novley | The Queen | Supreme Court of Queensland | Application dismissed |
| 7. | Wan | BT Funds Management Limited & Ors | Full Court of the | Application dismissed |
| 8. | Chisak | Presot & Anor | Supreme Court of | Application dismissed |
Publication of Reasons: 18 May 2023 (Canberra)
| No. |
| Respondent | Court appealed from | Result |
| 1. | DU | TG & Anor | Supreme Court of Queensland | Application dismissed |
| 2. | Mathews | Cooper & Ors | Supreme Court of Queensland | Application dismissed |
| 3. | Amgad | Cairns | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Application dismissed |
| 4. | Baxter & Ors | Gerrard & Ors | Supreme Court of Queensland | Application dismissed with costs |
| 5. | CVT19 | Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor | Federal Court of Australia | Application dismissed with costs |
| 6. | Heise | Employers Mutual Limited | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Application dismissed with costs |
| 7. | AXR (a pseudonym) | The King | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Application dismissed |
| 8. | AXR (a pseudonym) | The King | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Application dismissed |
| 9. | AXR (a pseudonym) | The King | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Application dismissed |
19 May 2023: Canberra and by video link
| No. |
| Respondent | Court appealed from | Result |
| 1. | QNI Resources Pty Ltd ABN 14 054 117 921 & Anor | North Queensland Pipeline No 1 Pty Ltd & Anor | Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) | Application refused |
| 2. | Transport Accident Commission | RBK (A Pseudonym) & Anor | Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) | Application refused |
| 3. | RGKY | Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor | Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia | Application refused |
0
116
0