Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 21 February 2025 42 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

[2025] HCAB 1 (21 February 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

Naaman v Jaken Properties Australia Pty Limited ACN 123 423 432 & Ors
Equity

Birketu Pty Ltd ACN 003 831 392 & Anor v Atanaskovic & Ors
Costs

State of Queensland v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors;

Commonwealth of Australia v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors

His Honour Judge Salvatore Paul Vasta v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors
Constitutional law

KMD v CEO (Department of Health NT) & Ors
Criminal law
3: Cases Reserved

Case

Title

Cherry v State of Queensland

Constitutional law

State of New South Wales v Wojciechowska & Ors

Constitutional law

Forestry Corporation of New South Wales v South East Forest Rescue Incorporated INC9894030

Civil procedure

DZY (a pseudonym) v Trustees of the Christian Brothers

Civil procedure

The King v Ryan Churchill (a pseudonym)

Criminal law

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case

Title

Government of the Russian Federation v Commonwealth of Australia

Constitutional law

Stott v The Commonwealth of Australia & Anor

Constitutional law

5: Section 40 Removal

Case

Title

6: Special Leave Granted

Case

Title

Hunt Leather Pty Ltd ACN 000745960 & Anor v Transport for NSW

Hunt Leather Pty Ltd ABN 46000745960 & Ors v Transport for NSW

Torts

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 February 2025 sittings.
Criminal law
KMD v CEO (Department of Health NT) & Ors
D2/2024: [2025] HCA 4
Date delivered: 27 February 2025
Coram: Gordon, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech‑Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Criminal law – mental impairment – supervision orders – where appellant found not guilty by reason of mental impairment of eight offences and subject to custodial supervision order under s 43X(2) of Criminal Code (NT) – where such order required first respondent to submit to Court report on treatment or management of supervised person’s impairment and Court may conduct review to determine whether person may be released from custodial supervision order – where on completion of review s 43ZH(2) Criminal Code required Court to vary order to non-custodial supervision order unless satisfied on the evidence that safety of supervised person or public will be seriously at risk if person released on non-custodial supervision order – where primary judge made non-custodial supervision order – where majority of Court of Criminal Appeal found not reasonably open to primary judge to find safety of public not seriously at risk if appellant placed on non-custodial supervision order –…

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 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of KMD v CEO (Department of Health NT) & Ors, the High Court allowed the appeal and returned the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeal had found that the appellant's safety and the safety of the public would not be seriously at risk if she were released on a non-custodial supervision order. The High Court held that the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in its standard of appellate review and in ordering the custodial supervision order without providing the appellant with a further hearing or opportunity to adduce evidence relevant to the risk based on the time she spent in the community following the primary judge's decision. The Court also held that the majority erred in ordering the custodial supervision order without any evidence relevant to the risk arising from the appellant's time in the community.

In the case of State of Queensland v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors, the High Court allowed the appeals and removed the matter from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The Court held that the Federal Circuit Court of Australia had the power to punish for contempt despite its designation as an inferior court, and that the order for contempt by the inferior court was not affected by jurisdictional error void ab initio. The Court also held that the Judge had the same immunity as a superior court judge with respect to making of contempt orders.

In the case of Birketu Pty Ltd ACN 003 831 392 & Anor v Atanaskovic & Ors, the High Court dismissed the appeal with costs. The Court held that the partners of an unincorporated law firm were not entitled to recover costs for work done by employed solicitors of that firm in proceedings brought by or against the partners of the firm. The Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the partners were able to recover costs of employed solicitors in proceedings in which they were self-represented solicitor litigants by their unincorporated law firm.

In the case of Naaman v Jaken Properties Australia Pty Limited ACN 123 423 432 & Ors, the High Court dismissed the appeal with costs. The Court held that the first respondent, as the successor trustee, did owe a fiduciary duty to the former trustee not to deal with trust assets so as to destroy, diminish, or jeopardise the former trustee’s right of indemnity or exoneration from those assets. The Court held that the Court of Appeal majority erred in concluding that the first respondent did not owe a fiduciary obligation at any time.

Orders