Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 14 August 2020 28 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2020] HCAB 6 (14 August 2020)

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
Singh v The Queen	Appeals
Berry & Anor v CCL Secure Pty Ltd	Damages
Lewis v Australian Capital Territory	Damages
Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union & Ors; Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union & Ors	Industrial Law
State of Queensland v The Estate of the Late Jennifer Leanne Masson	Negligence

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Northern Land Council & Anor v Quall & Anor	Administrative Law
Hsiao v Fazarri	Family Law
Calidad Pty Ltd & Ors v Seiko Epson Corporation & Anor	Intellectual Property
ABT17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Migration Law
Applicant S270/2019 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection	Migration Law

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Miller v The Queen	Criminal Law
MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Migration Law

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

Case	Title
CXXXVIII v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors	Administrative Law

8: Special Leave Refused

2: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the August 2020 sittings.

Appeals

Singh v The Queen

D16/2019: [2020] HCA 25

Judgment delivered: 5 August 2020

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ

Catchwords:

Appeals – Criminal appeal – Death of appellant – Where appellant died after appeal heard – Where appellant sought order quashing conviction and ordering retrial – Whether possible to make order sought – Whether other order appropriate.

Appealed from NTSC (CCA): [2019] NTCCA 8; (2019) 344 FLR 137; (2019) 277 A Crim R 35

Held: Special leave to appeal revoked.

Return to Top

Damages

Berry & Anor v CCL Secure Pty Ltd

S315/2019: [2020] HCA 27

Judgment delivered: 5 August 2020

Coram: Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Edelman JJ

Catchwords:

Damages – Misleading or deceptive conduct – Where first appellant induced to give up agreement by respondent's misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 52 of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – Where appellants sought damages pursuant to s 82 of Trade Practices Act referable to amounts payable had agreement not been terminated – Whether respondent entitled to contend that but for its misleading or deceptive conduct it would have lawfully terminated agreement – Whether presumption against wrongdoers applied – Whether evidence established real (not…

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: [2020] HCAB 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Singh v The Queen (D16/2019) was an appeal against the decision of the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal, which had upheld a conviction of the appellant for murder. The appellant had died before the appeal was heard and sought to have his conviction quashed and for a retrial to be ordered. The High Court was required to determine whether it was possible to make such an order and, if not, whether another order was appropriate. The High Court held that the appeal was incompetent because the appellant had died before the appeal was heard. The Court revoked the special leave to appeal and returned the matter to the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court did not consider it necessary to make any other order.

Berry & Anor v CCL Secure Pty Ltd (S315/2019) was an appeal against the decision of the Federal Court of Australia, which had dismissed the appellants' claim for damages. The appellants had sought damages pursuant to s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) referable to amounts payable had an agreement not been terminated. The High Court was required to determine whether the respondent was entitled to contend that but for its misleading or deceptive conduct it would have lawfully terminated the agreement and whether the presumption against wrongdoers applied. The High Court held that the appeal should be allowed and remitted the matter to the Federal Court of Australia for determination of the appellants' claim for damages.

Lewis v The Australian Capital Territory (C14/2019) was an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which had awarded the appellant nominal damages for false imprisonment. The appellant had been convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment served by periodic detention. The appellant breached obligations of periodic detention and was liable to arrest without warrant. The Sentence Administration Board was required by statute to decide to cancel the appellant's periodic detention. The Board's decision was held invalid for lack of procedural fairness. The appellant was unlawfully imprisoned in full-time detention for 82 days following the Board's invalid decision. The High Court was required to determine whether the award of only nominal damages was appropriate and whether the appellant was entitled to substantial compensatory damages or vindicatory damages. The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed and the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory should be affirmed.

Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union & Ors; Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union & Ors (M160/2019; M165/2019) was an appeal against the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which had held that the term "day" in s 96(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) referred to one-tenth of the equivalent of an employee's ordinary hours of work in a two-week period. The High Court was required to determine whether the term "day" in s 96(1) of the Fair Work Act referred to one-tenth of the equivalent of an employee's ordinary hours of work in a two-week period or a portion of a 24-hour period otherwise allotted to working. The High Court held that the appeals should be allowed and the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia should be set aside. The Court held that the term "day" in s 96(1) of the Fair Work Act referred to a portion of a 24-hour period otherwise allotted to working.

Orders