Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 26 September 2017 41 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2017] HCAB 7 (26 September 2017)

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: Court of Disputed Returns
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
Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Te Puia v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection	Constitutional Law
Chiro v The Queen	Criminal Law
Hamra v The Queen	Criminal Law
The Queen v Dookheea	Criminal Law
The Queen v Holliday	Criminal Law
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor; SZTGM v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Migration

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Australian Marriage Equality Ltd & Anor v Minister for Finance & Anor	Constitutional Law
Wilkie & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors	Constitutional Law
Regional Express Holdings Limited v Australian Federation of Air Pilots	Industrial Law
BRF038 v The Republic of Nauru	Migration
HFM045 v The Republic of Nauru	Migration

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Court of Disputed Returns

Case	Title
Re Nash	Court of Disputed Returns
Re Xenophon	Court of Disputed Returns

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Shrestha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor; Ghimire v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor; Acharya v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Migration
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW & Ors	Migration
Govier v Unitingcare Community	Negligence
UBS AG v Scott Francis Tyne as Trustee of the Argot Trust & Anor	Procedure

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

Case	Title
MEG027 v The Republic of Nauru	Migration

2: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the September 2017 sittings.

Constitutional Law

Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Te Puia v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

M97/2016; P58/2016: [2017] HCA 33

Judgment delivered: 6 September 2017

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

Catchwords:

Constitutional law (Cth) – Legislative power of Commonwealth – Constitution, s 75(v) – Where s 503A of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) prevents Minister for Immigration and Border Protection from being required to divulge or communicate certain information to courts – Whether s 503A requires courts to exercise judicial power in manner inconsistent with essential function of courts to find facts relevant to determination of rights in issue – Whether ss 501(3) and 503A(2) inconsistent with s 75(v) of Constitution – Whether s 503A(2)(c) denies High Court and Federal Court ability to enforce legislated limits of power – Whether s 503A(2)(c) curtails capacity of court to discern and declare whether legal limits 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: [2017] HCAB 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia handed down judgments in several cases during the September 2017 sittings. The cases covered a range of topics, including constitutional law, migration, criminal law, and industrial law. In the constitutional law cases, the court considered whether certain provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) were inconsistent with the Constitution. The court also considered whether certain provisions of the Constitution applied to particular cases. In the migration cases, the court considered whether certain individuals were entitled to protection visas under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). In the criminal law cases, the court considered various issues, including the standard of proof required for criminal convictions and the elements of certain criminal offences. In the industrial law cases, the court considered the scope of certain provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the jurisdiction of state tribunals in diversity matters. The court also considered the validity of certain determinations made under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court heard cases on a range of topics, including constitutional law, migration, criminal law, and industrial law. The court considered issues such as the validity of certain provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Constitution, the elements of certain criminal offences, and the scope of certain provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The court also considered whether certain individuals were entitled to protection visas under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court's reasoning and outcome varied depending on the case. In the constitutional law cases, the court found that certain provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) were inconsistent with the Constitution. In the migration cases, the court found that certain individuals were not entitled to protection visas under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). In the criminal law cases, the court found that certain provisions of the Constitution applied to particular cases and that certain criminal offences required a higher standard of proof than previously thought. In the industrial law cases, the court found that certain provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) had a limited scope and that state tribunals did not have jurisdiction in diversity matters. The final orders varied depending on the case. In the constitutional law cases, the court found that certain provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) were invalid. In the migration cases, the court found that certain individuals were not entitled to protection visas under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). In the criminal law cases, the court found that certain provisions of the Constitution applied to particular cases and that certain criminal offences required a higher standard of proof than previously thought. In the industrial law cases, the court found that certain provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) had a limited scope and that state tribunals did not have jurisdiction in diversity matters.

Orders