Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 24 April 2025 45 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

[2025] HCAB 3 (24 April 2025)

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

CZA19 v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor Constitutional law

DBD24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Anor Constitutional law

The King v ZT Criminal law

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd (ACN 009 778 330) & Anor
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union & Anor Competition law

The King v Ryan Churchill (a pseudonym) Criminal law

Stuart & Ors v State of South Australia & Ors Native title

FEL17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs Immigration

Cherry v State of Queensland Constitutional law

Forestry Corporation of New South Wales v South East Forest Rescue Incorporated INC9894030 Civil procedure

DZY (a pseudonym) v Trustees of the Christian Brothers Civil procedure

Plaintiff M19A/2024 & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Practice and procedure
3: Cases Reserved

Case

Title

Khalil v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor

Immigration

Commissioner of Taxation v PepsiCo, Inc
Commissioner of Taxation v Stokely-Van Camp, Inc
Commissioner of Taxation v PepsiCo, Inc
Commissioner of Taxation v PepsiCo, Inc
Commissioner of Taxation v Stokely-Van Camp, Inc
Commissioner of Taxation v Stokely-Van Camp, Inc

Taxation

Laming v Electoral Commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission

Elections

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case

Title

Farmer v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor

Constitutional law

5: Section 40 Removal

Case

Title

6: Special Leave Granted

Case

Title

Bed Bath ‘N’ Table Pty Ltd (ACN 005 216 866) v Global Retail Brands Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 006 348 205)

Trade marks

The King v McGregor

Criminal law

Gray v Lavan (A Firm)

Restitution

Shao v Crown Global Capital Pty Ltd (in prov liq) ACN 604 292 140 & Anor

Contracts

Cullen v State of New South Wales

Negligence

Taylor v Killer Queen LLC & Ors

Trade marks

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

Case

Title

The King v Batak

Criminal law

8: Special Leave Refused
2: Cases Handed Down
The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the April 2025 sittings.
Civil Procedure
DZY (a pseudonym) v Trustees of the Christian Brothers
M81/2024: [2025] HCA 16
Date delivered: 9 April 2025
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ
Catchwords:
Civil procedure – limitation of actions – application to set aside deeds of settlement under s 27QE of Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) – where appellant entered into two deeds of settlement relating to sexual abuse alleged against Christian…

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: [2025] HCAB 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CZA19 v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor and DBD24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Anor are two cases decided by the High Court of Australia, both raising questions of constitutional law and immigration detention. In CZA19, the Court was asked to determine whether the limit on the constitutionally permissible duration of immigration detention identified in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 applies to a non-citizen detained under sections 189(1) and 196(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for the purpose of considering whether to grant the person a visa where there is no real prospect of removal if the visa is not granted. In DBD24, the Court considered whether the constitutional limitation on the duration of immigration detention was exceeded where an alien had applied for a visa and the visa was being considered, and where the consideration of the visa application took an unreasonably long time. The Court found that in CZA19, the detention was unlawful between November 2022 and the release of the applicant, while in DBD24, the constitutional limitation was not exceeded.

The High Court of Australia also handed down judgments in several other cases. In Cherry v State of Queensland, the Court considered the validity of provisions in the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) that amended the "no body-no parole" scheme and introduced a new "restricted prisoners" regime. The Court held that sections 175L and 175E of the CSA were invalid as they enabled the Queensland executive to impermissibly interfere with the exercise of judicial power by State Courts contrary to the principle established in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (1996) 189 CLR 51. In Stuart & Ors v State of South Australia & Ors, the Court considered the proper construction of "native title" in section 223(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and whether the Full Court erred in dismissing the Arabana people's claim and making a determination of native title in favour of the Walka Wani people. The Court found that the Full Court majority erred in not finding that the trial judge failed to correctly construe and apply the definition of "native title" in section 223(1) when dismissing the Arabana's native title determination application.

In summary, the High Court of Australia addressed various issues in the cases decided during the April 2025 sittings, including constitutional law, immigration detention, native title, and corrections legislation. The Court found that the detention in CZA19 was unlawful, that sections 175L and 175E of the CSA were invalid, and that the Full Court majority erred in Stuart & Ors v State of South Australia & Ors.

Orders