Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 20 March 2020 34 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2020] HCAB 2 (20 March 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
State of Western Australia v Manado on behalf of the Bindunbur Native Title Claim Group & Ors; State of Western Australia v Augustine on behalf of the Jabirr Jabirr/Ngumbarl Native Title Claim Group & Ors; Commonwealth of Australia v Augustine on behalf of the Jabirr Jabirr/Ngumbarl Native Title Claim Group & Ors; Commonwealth of Australia v Manado on behalf of the Bindunbur Native Title Claim Group & Ors	Aboriginals
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v King & Anor	Corporations
KMC v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA)	Criminal Law
Strbak v The Queen	Criminal Law
Swan v The Queen	Criminal Law
The Queen v Guode	Criminal Law
BHP Billiton Limited v Commissioner of Taxation	Income Tax
Commissioner of State Revenue v Rojoda Pty Ltd	Stamp Duties

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Pell v The Queen	Criminal Law
Pickett v The State of Western Australia; Mead v The State of Western Australia; Mead v The State of Western Australia; Anthony v The State of Western Australia; TSM (A Child) v The State of Western Australia	Criminal Law
Singh v The Queen; Nguyen v The Queen	Criminal Law
Binsaris v Northern Territory of Australia; Webster v Northern Territory of Australia; O’Shea v Northern Territory of Australia; Austral v Northern Territory of Australia	Statutory Interpretation

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
Private R v Cowen & Anor	Constitutional Law

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
The Queen v Abdirahman-Khalif	Criminal Law
Roy v O’Neill	Evidence
Applicant S270/2019 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection	Migration Law
Minister for Home Affairs & Anor v FRX17 as Litigation Representative for FRM17; Minister for Home Affairs & Anor v Marie Theresa Arthur as Litigation Representative for BXD18; Minister for Home Affairs & Anor v DJA18 as Litigation Representative for DIZ18; Minister for Home Affairs & Ors v DLZ18 & Anor	Migration Law
Deguisa & Anor v Lynn & Ors	Real Property

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 March 2020 sittings.

Aboriginals

State of Western Australia v Manado on behalf of the Bindunbur Native Title Claim Group & Ors; State of Western Australia v Augustine on behalf of the Jabirr Jabirr/Ngumbarl Native Title Claim Group & Ors; Commonwealth of Australia v Augustine on behalf of the Jabirr Jabirr/Ngumbarl Native Title Claim Group & Ors;…

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 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Four cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia in March 2020. In State of Western Australia v Manado on behalf of the Bindunbur Native Title Claim Group & Ors; State of Western Australia v Augustine on behalf of the Jabirr Jabirr/Ngumbarl Native Title Claim Group & Ors; Commonwealth of Australia v Augustine on behalf of the Jabirr Jabirr/Ngumbarl Native Title Claim Group & Ors; Commonwealth of Australia v Manado on behalf of the Bindunbur Native Title Claim Group & Ors the court considered the scope of s 225(c) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and whether a determination of native title should include reference to the confirmation of access and enjoyment of land and waters by the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 (Cth). The court found that the confirmation of access and enjoyment was not limited to legally enforceable rights and privileges, and the act of confirmation through legislation gave rise to a "right" or "privilege" amounting to "other interest" in relation to the determination area. The appeal was allowed. In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v King & Anor the court considered the meaning of "officer" of a corporation within s 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court found that a person who had capacity to affect significantly the corporation's financial standing did not need to have acted in a recognised position within the corporation with rights and duties attached to it. The appeal was allowed. In BHP Billiton Limited v Commissioner of Taxation the court considered whether the income of a controlled foreign company was assessable to an Australian resident taxpayer. The court found that the income of the controlled foreign company was not assessable as the Australian entities were not "associates" of the company. The appeal was dismissed with costs. In Commissioner of State Revenue v Rojoda Pty Ltd the court considered whether a declaration of trust by a surviving partner holding freehold titles created new interests in land and whether it was a dutiable transaction. The court found that the partners' interest in the land was a beneficial interest in equity and the declaration of trust was not a dutiable transaction. The appeal was allowed with costs.

Orders