Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 27 March 2025 45 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

[2025] HCAB 2 (27 March 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

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Ors v MZAPC
Immigration

Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu (on behalf of the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group) & Ors
Constitutional law

Bogan & Anor v The Estate of Peter John Smedley (Deceased) & Ors Practice and procedure
3: Cases Reserved

Case

Title

Kain v R&B Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the R&B Pension Fund & Ors
Ernst & Young (a Firm) ABN 75 288 172 749 v R&B Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the R&B Pension Fund & Ors
Shand v R&B Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the R&B Penson Fund & Ors

Representative proceedings

Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley & Ors

Industrial law

Valuer-General Victoria v WSTI Properties 490 SKR Pty Ltd

Land valuation

MJZP v Director-General of Security & Anor

Constitutional law

Evans & Anor v Air Canada ABN 29094769561

Aviation law

La Perouse Local Aboriginal Council ABN 89136607167 & Anor v Quarry Street Pty Ltd ACN 616184117 & Anor

Land law

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case

Title

5: Section 40 Removal

Case

Title

6: Special Leave Granted

Case

Title

Michael Stewart by his litigation guardian Carol Schwarzman v Metro North Hospital and Health Service (ABN 184 996 277 942)

Torts

Farshchi v The King

Constitutional law

R Lawyers v Mr Daily & Anor

Contract law

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

Case

Title

8: Special Leave Refused
2: Cases Handed Down
The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the March 2025 sittings.
Constitutional Law
Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu (on behalf of the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group) & Ors
D5/2023: [2025] HCA 6
Date delivered: 12 March 2025
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech‑Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Constitutional law – Constitution, s 51(xxxi) – Acquisition of property on just terms – Extinguishment of native title – Where principal proceeding is application for compensation under Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) for alleged effects of grants or legislative acts on native title in period after Northern Territory became territory of Commonwealth in 1911 and before enactment of Northern Territory Self-Government Act 1978 (Cth) – Whether Full Court erred by failing to find that just terms requirement contained in s 51(xxxi) of Constitution does not apply to laws enacted pursuant to s 122 of Constitution, including Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910 (Cth) and Ordinances made thereunder – Whether Wurridjal v Commonwealth (2009) 237 CLR 309 should be re-opened –…

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 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu, the High Court addressed the constitutional validity of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910, as well as the interpretation of the term "just terms" under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution in relation to the extinguishment of native title. The Court was tasked with determining whether the Full Court had correctly interpreted the law concerning the extinguishment of native title and the application of the "just terms" requirement in the context of the Northern Territory's legislative history. The Court examined whether the Full Court erred in finding that the Crown's reservation of minerals from pastoral leases did not amount to an acquisition of property under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.

In Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Ors v MZAPC, the High Court was asked to consider the extent to which a primary judge could grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the removal of an unlawful non-citizen from Australia. The Full Court had upheld the primary judge's decision, leading to the appeal. The Court had to determine whether the Full Court was correct in concluding that the primary judge had the power to grant such an injunction.

The High Court held that the Full Court's interpretation of the law concerning the extinguishment of native title and the application of the "just terms" requirement was correct. The Court found that the Full Court had properly determined that the reservation of minerals from pastoral leases did not constitute an acquisition of property under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. The Court further held that the Full Court did not err in affirming the primary judge's power to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the removal of an unlawful non-citizen from Australia.

The orders of the Court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the Full Court's decision was upheld in both cases.

Orders