Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 14 April 2022 39 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2022] HCAB 3 (14 April 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
Hoang v The Queen	Criminal Practice
Commissioner of Taxation v Carter & Ors	Income Tax
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson & Anor	Industrial Law
Kozarov v Victoria	Negligence
Tapp v Australian Bushmen's Campdraft & Rodeo Association Limited	Tort

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor v Montgomery	Constitutional Law
Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd as Trustee for The Holly Superannuation Fund & Ors	Superannuation

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Page v Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd trading as Sydney Seaplanes ABN 95112379629	Constitutional Law
RP Data Pty Limited v Hardingham & Ors; Realestate.com.au v Hardingham & Ors	Copyright
Stephens v The Queen	Criminal Law
Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation & Anor	Equity
TL v The Queen	Evidence

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 April 2022 sittings.

Criminal Practice

Hoang v The Queen

S146 to S149/2021: [2022] HCA 14

Judgment: 13 April 2022

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

Catchwords:

Criminal practice – Jury trial – Where s 53A(1)(c) of Jury Act 1977 (NSW) provided for mandatory discharge of juror where juror engaged in misconduct in relation to trial – Where misconduct included conduct constituting offence against Jury Act – Where offence against s 68C(1) of Jury Act for juror to make inquiry for purpose of obtaining information about any matters relevant to trial – Where evidence led as to Working with Children Check – Where evidence subject of submissions and referred to in summing up – Where jury note disclosed juror had searched internet for requirements of Working with Children Check – Where trial judge took verdicts which jury indicated they had reached unanimous verdict on before discharging juror – Whether information subject of inquiry about matter relevant to trial – Whether inquiry made for purpose of obtaining information about that matter – Whether mandatory discharge of juror required.
Words and phrases – "constitution and authority of the jury", "discharge of jurors", "jury deliberations", "making an inquiry", "mandatory discharge", "matters relevant to the trial", "misconduct in relation to the trial", "purpose of obtaining information", "true verdict according to the evidence".
Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 53A, 53B, 55DA, 68C.

Appealed from NSWSC (CCA): [2018] NSWCCA 166;

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 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hoang v The Queen, the court was asked to determine whether a juror who engaged in misconduct by making an inquiry for the purpose of obtaining information about a matter relevant to the trial should be mandatorily discharged under section 53A(1)(c) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW). The court held that the misconduct did not amount to a mandatory discharge of the juror because the inquiry did not relate to a matter relevant to the trial.

In Commissioner of Taxation v Carter & Ors, the court was asked to decide whether the present entitlement of beneficiaries to a share of income of a trust estate under section 97(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) is determined immediately prior to the end of the income year, or whether disclaimers of interest in the share of income can operate retrospectively to disapply section 97(1) in respect of the income year. The court held that the disclaimers did not operate retrospectively and that the present entitlement was determined immediately prior to the end of the income year.

In Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson & Anor, the court was asked to determine whether the discretion of the Federal Court of Australia to order a pecuniary penalty under section 546 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is constrained by the notion of proportionality drawn from criminal law, and whether the statutory maximum penalty for the civil remedy provision may be imposed only for the worst category of contravening conduct. The court held that the discretion is not constrained by the notion of proportionality, and that the statutory maximum penalty may be imposed for any category of contravening conduct.

In Kozarov v State of Victoria, the court was asked to decide whether the respondent failed to take reasonable measures in response to evident signs of psychiatric injury suffered by the appellant, and whether the respondent's failure caused an exacerbation of the psychiatric injury. The court held that the respondent failed to take reasonable measures and that the failure caused an exacerbation of the psychiatric injury.

In Tapp v Australian Bushmen's Campdraft & Rodeo Association Limited, the court was asked to determine whether the respondent breached its duty of care, whether the breach of duty of care caused the appellant's injuries, and whether the harm suffered by the appellant was a result of the materialisation of the obvious risk of the dangerous recreational activity. The court held that the respondent breached its duty of care, that the breach caused the appellant's injuries, and that the harm suffered by the appellant was a result of the materialisation of the obvious risk of the dangerous recreational activity.

Orders