Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 30 May 2019 37 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2019] HCAB 4 (30 May 2019)

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
Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission	Administrative Law
Rinehart & Anor v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd & Ors; Rinehart & Anor v Georgina Hope Rinehart (in her personal capacity and as trustee of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust and as trustee of the HFMF Trust) & Ors	Arbitration
Parkes Shire Council v South West Helicopters Pty Limited	Aviation Law
Spence v State of Queensland	Constitutional Law

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Palmer & Ors v Australian Electoral Commission & Ors	Constitutional Law
Mann & Anor v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd	Contract Law
Connective Services Pty Ltd & Anor v Slea Pty Ltd & Ors	Corporations Law
Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow & Anor	Costs
Love v Commonwealth of Australia; Thoms v Commonwealth of Australia	Migration Law

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Section 40 Removal

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster & Anor	Constitutional Law
Westpac Banking Corporation & Anor v Lenthall & Ors	Constitutional Law
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v King & Anor	Corporations Law
Grech v The Queen; Kadir v The Queen	Evidence
The Queen v Guode	Criminal Law
CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Migration Law
BHP Billiton Limited (now named BHP Group Limited) v Commissioner of Taxation	Taxation
Commissioner of State Revenue v Rojoda Pty Ltd	Taxation
Comptroller-General of Customs v Pharm-A-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd	Taxation

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

2: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the May 2019 sittings.

Administrative Law

Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission

M136/2018: [2019] HCA 16

Judgment delivered: 15 May 2019

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

Catchwords:

Administrative law (Cth) – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Nature and scope of review – Where appellant's convictions spent under Pt VIIC of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – Where Div 3 of Pt VIIC of Crimes Act prohibited Australian Securities and Investments Commission ("ASIC") from taking into consideration spent convictions in deciding to make banning order – Where review of decision of ASIC by Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Where s 85ZZH(c) of Crimes Act provided that Div 3 of Pt VIIC does not apply to Commonwealth tribunal – Whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal entitled to take into consideration on review spent convictions which ASIC was prohibited from taking into consideration.
Words and phrases – "banning order", "fit…

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: [2019] HCAB 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the central legal issue was whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was entitled to take into consideration spent convictions which ASIC was prohibited from taking into consideration. The High Court found that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was not entitled to take into consideration spent convictions which ASIC was prohibited from taking into consideration. The Court allowed the appeal and ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the appellant in this Court.

In the case of Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd and Ors, the central legal issues were whether the validity claims were subject to the arbitral clause and whether the third party companies were claiming "through or under" a party to the arbitration agreement. The High Court found that the validity claims were not subject to the arbitral clause and that the third party companies were claiming "through or under" a party to the arbitration agreement. The Court dismissed the appeals and ordered the third party companies to pay the appellants’ costs of appeal.

In the case of Parkes Shire Council v South West Helicopters Pty Limited, the central legal issue was whether the claims brought by the widow, daughter and son of the passenger were precluded by the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 (Cth). The High Court found that the claims were precluded by the Act. The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.

In the case of Spence v State of Queensland, the central legal issues were whether the Commonwealth legislative power with respect to federal elections was exclusive or concurrent, whether the Queensland amendments were inconsistent with the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and whether the Queensland amendments were invalid for infringing the implied freedom of communication about governmental and political matters. The High Court answered the questions on 17 April 2019.

Orders