Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 21 October 2022 40 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2022] HCAB 8 (21 October 2022)

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
SDCV v Director-General of Security & Anor	Constitutional Law
TL v The King	Evidence
BHP Group Limited v Impiombato & Anor	Statutes
Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation & Anor	Trusts

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Davis v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Ors; DCM20 v Secretary of Department of Home Affairs & Anor	Constitutional Law
Realestate.com.au Pty Ltd v Hardingham & Ors; RP Data Pty Limited v Hardingham & Ors	Copyright
Bryant & Ors as Liquidators of Gunns Limited and Auspine Limited v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd	Corporations Law
Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Gavin Morton as Liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) & Anor	Corporations Law

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
Unions NSW & Ors v State of New South Wales	Constitutional Law

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
BDO v The Queen	Criminal Law
HCF v The Queen	Criminal Practice
McNamara v The Queen	Evidence
Barnett v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice	Family 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 October 2022 sittings.

Constitutional Law

SDCV v Director-General of Security & Anor

S27/2022: [2022] HCA 32

Judgment: 12 October 2022

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

Catchwords:

Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Where adverse security assessment of appellant, accompanied by statement of grounds, certified by Director General of Security on behalf of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation ("ASA decision") – Where appellant's visa cancelled on character grounds in consequence of ASA decision – Where appellant applied to Administrative Appeals Tribunal for merits review of ASA decision – Where Minister administering Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) issued certificates under s 39B(2)(a) of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ("AAT Act") stating that disclosure of some of contents of documents relating to ASA decision would be contrary to public interest because disclosure would prejudice security of Australia ("certificated matter") – Where Tribunal provided with certificated matter but certificated matter not disclosed to appellant or appellant's legal representatives – Where Tribunal affirmed ASA decision – Where appellant appealed to Federal Court of Australia pursuant to s 44 of AAT Act – Where s 46(1) of AAT Act allowed Federal Court to have…

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: [2022] HCAB 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In SDCV v Director-General of Security, the High Court dismissed an appeal by the appellant, SDCV, who challenged the validity of section 46(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The appellant argued that the section was unconstitutional as it denied him a fair opportunity to respond to evidence on which the order of the court might be based. The Court held that the section was valid, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. In TL v The King, the High Court dismissed an appeal by the appellant, TL, who argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal had misapplied the principles in Hughes v The Queen. The appellant argued that tendency evidence required to bear a close similarity to the offence and had significant probative value. The Court held that the appeal was properly dismissed, and the Court of Criminal Appeal had not misapplied the principles in Hughes v The Queen. In BHP Group Limited v Impiombato, the High Court dismissed an appeal by the appellants, BHP Group Limited and others, who argued that Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 allowed claims to be brought on behalf of group members not resident in Australia. The Court held that the presumption against extraterritoriality precluded the bringing of such claims and dismissed the appeal with costs. In Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation, the High Court allowed an appeal by the appellants, Bosanac and others, who argued that the presumption of advancement precluded the presumption of resulting trust from arising. The Court held that the presumption of advancement remained part of the general law of Australia and allowed the appeal.

Orders