Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 12 March 2021 43 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2021] HCAB 2 (12 March 2021)

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, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v AAM17 & Anor	Administrative Law
Palmer & Anor v The State of Western Australia & Anor	Constitutional Law
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v EFX17	Immigration
Wigmans v AMP Limited & Ors	Practice and Procedure
The Commissioner of Taxation for the Commonwealth of Australia v Travelex Limited	Taxation

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
LibertyWorks Inc v Commonwealth of Australia	Constitutional Law
Matthew Ward Price as Executor of the Estate of Alan Leslie Price (Deceased) & Ors v Christine Claire Spoor as Trustee & Ors	Contracts
Namoa v The Queen	Criminal Law
MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Migration Law
Talacko v Talacko & Ors	Torts

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Port of Newcastle Operations Pty Limited v Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd & Ors	Competition Law
Hofer v The Queen	Criminal Law
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane	Migration Law
Arsalan v Rixon; Nguyen v Cassim	Torts

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 February 2021 sittings.

Administrative Law

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v AAM17 & Anor

P23/2020: [2021] HCA 6

Judgment delivered: 4 March 2021

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

Catchwords:

Immigration – Visas – Application for protection visa – Procedural fairness – Where delegate of Minister rejected first respondent's application for protection visa – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed delegate's decision – Where first respondent sought judicial review of that decision in Federal Circuit Court – Where first respondent unrepresented before Circuit Court and obtained assistance of interpreter – Where Circuit Court dismissed application for judicial review and delivered ex tempore judgment – Where Circuit Court orders were translated to first respondent but ex tempore reasons were not – Where written reasons delivered by Circuit Court after first respondent filed notice of appeal in Federal Court of Australia – Where Federal Court held that failure of Circuit Court to have ex tempore reasons for judgment translated resulted in denial of procedural fairness – Whether Federal Court erred in holding that Circuit Court denied first respondent procedural fairness – Whether Federal Court erred in holding that setting aside Circuit Court's…

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: [2021] HCAB 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v AAM17 & Anor [2021] HCA 6 was heard by the High Court of Australia. The legal issues in this case concerned the application for a protection visa, procedural fairness, and the denial of practical justice. The court had to decide whether the Federal Court erred in holding that the Circuit Court denied the first respondent procedural fairness and whether setting aside the Circuit Court's judgment was necessary to provide the first respondent with practical justice. The High Court held that the appeal should be allowed, and the matter should be returned to the Federal Court for further consideration. The court found that the failure of the Circuit Court to have ex tempore reasons for judgment translated resulted in a denial of procedural fairness and that setting aside the Circuit Court's judgment was necessary to provide the first respondent with practical justice.

In Palmer & Anor v The State of Western Australia & Anor [2021] HCA 5, the High Court addressed questions regarding the constitutional limitation on freedom of interstate trade, commerce, and intercourse. The key legal issues in this case were whether the Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA) or the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions (WA) impermissibly infringed the constitutional limitation in s 92 of the Constitution, and whether the provisions of the Act imposed an impermissible burden on interstate trade, commerce, or intercourse. The High Court answered the questions, holding that the provisions of the Act and the Directions did not impermissibly infringe the constitutional limitation or impose an impermissible burden on interstate trade, commerce, or intercourse.

Orders