Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 24 December 2024 51 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

[2024] HCAB 10 (24 December 2024)

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

Fuller & Anor v Lawrence
Administrative law

Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi (formerly Sanofi-Aventis) & Ors
Damages

Elisha v Vision Australia Limited
Damages

Kramer & Anor v Stone
Estoppel

BIF23 by his Litigation Guardian the Public Advocate v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
Immigration

Pearson v Commonwealth of Australia
JZQQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
Tapiki v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
Minister for Home Affairs v Pearson
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v Tapiki
Statutes

Pafburn Pty Limited (ACN 003 485 505) & Anor v The Owners - Strata Plan No 84674
Tort
3: Cases Reserved

Case

Title

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v J Hutchison Pty Ltd (ACN 009 778 330) & Anor

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union & Anor

Competition law

MJZP v Director-General of Security & Anor

Constitutional law

Ravbar & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors

Constitutional law

Brawn v The King

Criminal practice

MDP v The King

Evidence

FEL17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

Immigration

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

Plaintiff M19A/2024 & Ors v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship & Multicultural Affairs

Administrative law

Laming v Electoral Commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission

Elections

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

Immigration

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 December 2024 sittings.
Administrative Law
Fuller & Anor v Lawrence
B24/2024; [2024] HCA 45
Date delivered: 4 December 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Gleeson and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Administrative law – Judicial review – Decision of administrative character made under an enactment – Where prisoner was subject to supervision order of Supreme Court of Queensland – Where Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) required supervision order to contain requirement that prisoner comply with every reasonable direction of corrective services officer – Whether prisoner entitled to reasons for direction – Whether Act source of direction's effect on prisoner's legal obligations.
Words and phrases – "decision made under an enactment", "direction", "judicial review", "legal force or effect from statute", "legal rights or obligations", "statement of…

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: [2024] HCAB 10
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fuller and Anor v Lawrence involved an appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland regarding the validity of a supervision order made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The appeal questioned whether the prisoner was entitled to reasons for a direction issued by a corrective services officer and whether the supervision order's effect on the prisoner's legal obligations stemmed from the statute. The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, holding that the supervision order was valid and did not require the provision of reasons for every direction issued by a corrective services officer.

In Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi (formerly Sanofi-Aventis) and Ors, the issue was whether the onus of proof for loss arising from an undertaking as to damages should be rigidly applied. The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, ruling that the onus of proof discharged by the Commonwealth was sufficient, and that the concurrent findings of lower courts were not clearly wrong.

Elisha v Vision Australia Limited involved the question of whether an employer's breach of contract could lead to liability for psychiatric injury caused by the manner of dismissal. The High Court allowed the appeal with costs, holding that the employer's breach of contract in terminating the employee's employment based on allegations of previous aggressive behaviour, without following the disciplinary procedure, was within the scope of the employer's duty and could result in liability for psychiatric injury.

In Kramer and Anor v Stone, the appeal raised the question of whether a promisee in a proprietary estoppel case was required to prove that the promisor undertook subsequent acts of encouragement after making the initial promise. The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, ruling that the promisor did not need to further encourage the promisee to rely on the promise after making the initial promise.

In BIF23 by his Litigation Guardian the Public Advocate v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the issue was whether the notification to the appellant regarding the revocation of the visa cancellation decision was valid, given that the appellant lacked legal capacity to make representations about the revocation at the time of the notification. The High Court allowed the appeal with costs, finding that the notification was not valid due to the appellant's lack of capacity at the time.

Pearson v Commonwealth of Australia and others involved the retrospective validation of decisions made under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that had been rendered invalid due to an oversight in considering aggregate sentences for 12 months or more. The High Court dismissed the appeals with costs, holding that the retrospective validation was invalid and that the second applications for special leave should be granted.

Pafburn Pty Limited (ACN 003 485 505) and Anor v The Owners - Strata Plan No 84674 involved the question of whether Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) could limit liability for damages for breach of a statutory duty imposed on a person carrying out construction work. The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, ruling that Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act could not limit liability for damages for breach of the statutory duty.

In Brawn v The King, the issue was whether a breach of the prosecution duty of disclosure led to a miscarriage of justice for the purposes of s 158(1)(c) Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA). The High Court found that the breach of duty of disclosure did not lead to a miscarriage of justice because the appellant would not have conducted the trial differently. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

In Naaman v Jaken Properties Australia Pty Limited and Ors, the appeal questioned whether the first respondent, as a successor trustee, owed 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 High Court found that the first respondent did not owe such a fiduciary duty and dismissed the appeal with costs.

In MDP v The King, the issue was whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no miscarriage of justice occurred when evidence inadmissible as propensity evidence was nonetheless left to the jury to be used as propensity evidence. The High Court found that the Court of Appeal did not err in its decision, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

In FEL17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the issue was whether the majority of the Full Federal Court erred in finding the second application for a protection visa invalid and barred by s 48A. The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the Full Federal Court's decision.

In Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Ors v MZAP, the issue was whether the Full Court erred in concluding that the primary judge had the power to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from removing the appellant from Australia. The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the Full Court's decision.

In Stuart and Ors v State of South Australia and Ors, the issue was whether the Full Court majority erred in not finding the trial judge failed to correctly construe and apply the definition of "native title" in s 223(1) Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) when dismissing the Arabana claim and whether the Full Court erred by treating all aspects of the determination in Dodd as being geographically specific. The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the Full Court's decision.

In Bogan and Anor v The Estate of Peter John Smedley (Deceased) and Ors, the issue was whether a group costs order made under s 33ZDA of Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) was relevant in deciding whether to transfer proceedings to another court under s 1337H(2) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and whether the group costs order would remain in force if proceedings were transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the Court of Appeal's decision.

In Cherry v State of Queensland, the issue was whether provisions under the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) were invalid as they enabled the Queensland executive to impermissibly interfere with the exercise of judicial power by State Courts contrary to the principle established in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (1996) 189 CLR 51. The High Court found that the provisions were invalid and referred the matter back to the Full Court.

In Government of the Russian Federation v Commonwealth of Australia, the issue was whether the Home Affairs Act 2023 (Cth) was invalid on the ground that it was not supported by a head of Commonwealth power and whether its operation resulted in the acquisition of property from the plaintiff under s 51(xxxi) Constitution requirement payment of reasonable compensation under s 6(1) Home Affairs Act. The High Court referred the matter back to the Full Court.

In Stott v The Commonwealth of Australia and Anor, the issue was whether prior to the commencement of Treasury Laws (Amendment Foreign Investment) Act 2024, ss 7, 8, 25,

Orders