High Court Bulletin

[2024] HCAB 9

High Court Bulletin

[2024] HCAB 9 (27 November 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
YBFZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor	Constitutional law
RC v The Salvation Army (Western Australia) Property Trust	Courts
Willmot v The State of Queensland	Courts
Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd ACN 004 116 223	Damages
Williams & Anor v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (ACN 009 686 097); Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (ACN 009 686 097) v Williams & Anor	Damages
Bird v DP (a pseudonym)	Torts

3: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Lendlease Corporation Limited ACN 000 226 228 & Anor v David William Pallas and Julie Ann Pallas as trustees for the Pallas Family Superannuation Fund & Anor	Civil procedure
CZA19 v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor	Constitutional law
DBD24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Anor	Constitutional law
The King v ZT	Criminal law
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Ors v MZAPC	Immigration
Stuart & Ors v State of South Australia & Ors	Native title
Bogan & Anor v The Estate of Peter John Smedley (Deceased) & Ors	Practice and procedure

4: Original Jurisdiction

Case Title

5: Section 40 Removal

Case Title

6: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
The King v Batak	Criminal law
The King v Ryan Churchill (a pseudonym)	Criminal law
Valuer-General Victoria v WSTI Properties 490 SKR Pty Ltd	Land valuation
Kain v R&B Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the R&B Pension Fund & Ors Ernst & Young (a Firm) ABN 75 288 172 749 v R&B Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the R&B Pension Fund & Ors Shand v R&B Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the R&B Penson Fund & Ors	Representative proceedings
CD & Anor v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) & Anor	Statutes
Palmanova Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia	Statutes
Commissioner of Taxation v PepsiCo, Inc Commissioner of Taxation v Stokely-Van Camp, Inc Commissioner of Taxation v PepsiCo, Inc Commissioner of Taxation v PepsiCo, Inc Commissioner of Taxation v Stokely-Van Camp, Inc Commissioner of Taxation v Stokely-Van Camp, Inc	Taxation

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 November 2024 sittings.

Constitutional law

YBFZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor
S27/2024: [2024] HCA 40

Date delivered: 6 November 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Where cl 070.612A(1) of Sch 2 to Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) provides that each of conditions set out in paras (a)-(d) must be imposed on grant of Bridging R (Class WR) visa ("BVR") by Minister unless Minister "satisfied that it is not reasonably necessary to impose that condition for the protection of any part of the Australian community" – Where condition in cl 070.612A(1)(a) ("monitoring condition") enables continuous electronic monitoring of person's location by requiring person to wear electronic monitoring device affixed around person's ankle – Where condition in cl 070.612A(1)(d) ("curfew condition") requires person to remain in specified location generally between 10.00 pm and 6.00 am – Where condition imposed on grant of BVR remains in force for period of 12 months from date of grant – Where failure to comply with monitoring condition or curfew condition an offence punishable by maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment or 300 penalty units or both and mandatory minimum sentence of one year's imprisonment – Where delegate of Minister granted plaintiff a BVR on conditions including monitoring condition and curfew condition – Where plaintiff arrested and charged with offences of failing to comply with monitoring condition and curfew condition – Whether cl 070.612A(1)(a) and (d) infringe Ch III of Constitution and are invalid.

Words and phrases – "arbitrary punishment", "bodily integrity", "curfew condition", "detention", "detriment", "exclusively judicial", "interference with individual liberty or bodily integrity", "judicial power", "legitimate and non-punitive purpose", "liberty", "Lim principle", "monitoring condition", "pre-eminent value", "prima facie punitive", "punishment", "punitive purpose", "purpose of punishment", "reasonably capable of being seen to be necessary", "separation of powers".

Criminal Code (Cth), Div 395.

Migration Act 1958(Cth), ss 73, 76C, 76D, 76DA, 76E.

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), regs 2.25AA, 2.25AB, 2.25AE, Sch 2, cl 070.612A(1), Sch 8, cll 8620, 8621.

Questions answered

Return to Top

Courts

RC v The Salvation Army (Western Australia) Property Trust

P7/2023: [2024] HCA 43

Date delivered: 13 November 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Courts – Abuse of process – Permanent stay of proceedings – Where claim for damages for personal injury for alleged sexual abuse occurring in 1959 and 1960 – Where no limitation period in respect of child sexual abuse actions under s 6A of Limitation Act 2005 (WA) – Where deaths of alleged perpetrator and other potential witnesses – Where absence of documentary evidence – Whether trial necessarily unfair – Whether continuation of proceedings an abuse of process justifying permanent stay.

Words and phrases – "abuse of process", "child sexual abuse", "exceptional circumstances", "fair trial", "limitation period", "non-delegable duty", "permanent stay", "prejudice", "unfairness".

Limitation Act 2005 (WA), s 6A.

Appeal allowed with costs.

Appealed from WASC (CA): [2023] WASCA 29

Return to Top

Willmot v The State of Queensland

B65/2023: [2024] HCA 42

Date delivered: 13 November 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Courts – Abuse of process – Permanent stay of proceedings – Where claim for damages for personal injury for alleged child sexual abuse and serious physical abuse more than 50 years ago – Where no limitation period for claims resulting from child sexual abuse or serious physical abuse under s 11A of Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) – Where deaths of certain alleged perpetrators and other potential witnesses – Where absence of documentary evidence – Whether trial necessarily unfair – Whether abolition of limitation period changed right to fair trial – Whether continuation of proceedings an abuse of process justifying permanent stay.

Words and phrases – "abuse of process", "child sexual abuse", "delay in bringing proceedings", "exceptional circumstances", "fair trial", "forensic disadvantage", "irreducible minimum standards of fairness", "limitation period", "manifest unfairness", "non-delegable duty", "oppressive", "permanent stay", "prejudice", "serious physical abuse", "unfairness".

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 11A.

Appeal allowed in part, respondent to pay appellant’s costs

Appealed from QLDSC (CA): [2023] QCA 102

Return to Top

Damages

Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd ACN 004 116 223

S25/2024: [2024] HCA 39

Date delivered: 6 November 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Damages – Assessment – Consumer law – Where appellant brought representative proceedings against respondent on behalf of persons who acquired motor vehicles fitted with "DPS6" transmission – Where vehicles had at least one of five defects – Where primary judge concluded vehicles did not comply with guarantee of "acceptable quality" in s 54(1) of Australian Consumer Law ("ACL") at time of supply – Where s 271(1) of ACL provides that if guarantee under s 54 is not complied with, "an affected person in relation to the goods may ... recover damages from the manufacturer" – Where s 272(1)(a) provides that "an affected person in relation to goods is entitled to recover damages for ... any reduction in the value of the goods, resulting from the failure to comply with the guarantee to which the action relates" – Where primary judge assessed damages payable under s 272(1)(a) – Where primary judge did not consider whether adverse consequences of each defect materialised in appellant's vehicle and fact that some defective components were replaced after date of supply – Where Full Court of Federal Court of Australia followed decision of Full Court in Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd v Williams (2023) 296 FCR 514 – Where Full Court held subsequent events were capable of bearing on assessment of damages under s 272(1)(a) and primary judge erred in not considering information known at time of trial and appellant's use of vehicle up until time of trial – Whether Full Court erred in finding that assessment of damages under s 272(1)(a) may require departure from time of supply or adjustment to avoid "over-compensation" – Whether Full Court erred in finding that assessment of damages under s 272(1)(a) required having regard to events after time of supply.

Words and phrases – "assessment of damages", "consumer", "damages", "defect", "guarantee of acceptable quality", "loss-based damages", "materialisation of risks", "over-compensation", "performance-based damages", "reduction in value", "repair", "state and condition of the goods", "time of supply", "time of trial".

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law), ss 54(1), 271(1), 272(1)(a), 272(1)(b).

Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed, respondent to pay 75% of appellant’s costs

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 179; (2023) 300 FCR 1

Return to Top

Williams & Anor v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (ACN 009 686 097); Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (ACN 009 686 097) v Williams & Anor

S157/2023; S155/2023: [2024] HCA 38

Date delivered: 6 November 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Damages – Assessment – Consumer law – Where Mr Williams and Direct Claim Services Qld Pty Ltd ("Williams parties") brought representative proceedings against Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited ("Toyota") on behalf of persons who acquired motor vehicles fitted with defective diesel exhaust after-treatment system – Where vehicles had propensity to experience defect consequences – Where effective fix became available in May 2020 free of charge ("repair") – Where primary judge concluded vehicles did not comply with guarantee of "acceptable quality" in s 54(1) of Australian Consumer Law ("ACL") at time of supply – Where s 271(1) of ACL provides that if guarantee under s 54 is not complied with, "an affected person in relation to the goods may ... recover damages from the manufacturer" – Where s 272(1)(a) of ACL provides that "an affected person in relation to goods is entitled to recover damages for ... any reduction in the value of the goods, resulting from the failure to comply with the guarantee to which the action relates" – Where primary judge held assessment of damages under s 272(1)(a) to be made at time of supply and information acquired thereafter could only be considered if it bore upon "true value" at time of supply, which did not include knowledge of availability of repair – Where Full Court of Federal Court of Australia held that assessment of damages under s 272(1)(a) may require departure from time of supply or adjustment to avoid "over‑compensation" – Where Full Court held that availability and timing of repair should be considered – Whether Full Court erred in permitting an assessment of damages after time of supply rather than only using information acquired thereafter to confirm what could be foreseen at time of supply – Whether Full Court erred in failing to conclude that damages under s 272(1)(a) are recoverable where there is no ongoing reduction in value at time of trial due to availability of repair.

Words and phrases – "affected person in relation to goods", "assessment of damages", "availability of a repair", "compensation", "consumer", "damages", "defect", "defect consequences", "full knowledge of the defect", "guarantee of acceptable quality", "hypothetical reasonable consumer", "inherent features of the defect", "loss-based damages", "loss or damage", "performance-based damages", "reduction in value", "state and condition of the goods", "time of supply", "time of trial".

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law), ss 54(1), 271(1), 272(1)(a), 272(1)(b).

Appeal allowed, respondent to pay 50% of appellant’s costs (S157/2023)
Appeal dismissed with costs (S155/2023)

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 50; (2023) 296 FCR 514; (2023) 408 ALR 582

Return to Top

Torts

Bird v DP (a pseudonym)

M82/2023: [2024] HCA 41

Date delivered: 13 November 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Torts – Intentional torts – Vicarious liability – Where priest committed sexual abuse whilst carrying out pastoral duties as representative of Diocese – Where priest not agent or employee of Diocese – Whether Diocese vicariously liable for priest's sexual abuse – Whether vicarious liability extends beyond relationships of employment to relationships "akin to employment".

Appeals – Issue not raised at trial – Where respondent sought to rely on non-delegable duty – Where factual basis for duty not pleaded or tested at trial – Prejudice.

Words and phrases – "agency", "akin to employment", "course of employment", "negligence", "nominated defendant", "non-delegable duty", "prejudice", "representative", "scope of employment", "sexual abuse", "strict liability", "unincorporated association", "vicarious liability".

Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2018 (Vic), ss 1, 5, 7.

Appeal allowed with costs

Appealed from VSC (CA): [2023] VSCA 66; (2023) 69 VR 408; (2023) 323 IR 174

Return to Top

3: Cases Reserved

The following cases have been reserved or part heard by the High Court of Australia.

Administrative Law

Fuller & Anor v Lawrence

B24/2024; [2024] HCATrans 62

Date heard: 10 September 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Gleeson and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Administrative law – Judicial review – Reviewable decisions and conduct – Meaning of "decision... made under an enactment" – Where respondent is prisoner released under supervision order pursuant to Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – Where Corrective Services Officer gave direction to respondent approving phone contact with particular person including video calls, but denying respondent’s request to have in-person contact with that person – Where respondent requested reasons for direction in so far as it denied in-person contact – Where appellants' response was respondent not entitled to statement of reasons under Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) ("JRA") – Where primary judge found direction was decision under enactment within meaning of JRA and therefore respondent entitled to statement of reasons under s 33 of JRA – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding direction "itself" affects rights in sense necessary to qualify as "decision … made under an enactment" within meaning of JRA.

Appealed from QLDSC (CA): [2023] QCA 257

Return to Top

Civil Procedure

Lendlease Corporation Limited ACN 000 226 228 & Anor v David William Pallas and Julie Ann Pallas as trustees for the Pallas Family Superannuation Fund & Anor

S108/2024: [2024] HCATrans 76

Date heard: 5 November 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Civil procedure – representative proceedings – notices to group members - where appellant is defendant in shareholder class action brought by respondent plaintiffs alleging misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of continuous disclosure obligations – where separate question stated for determination in New South Wales Court of Appeal – whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that Supreme Court of New South Wales does not have power in representative proceeding too approve notice to group members containing notation to effect that upon any settlement, parties or defendant will seek order that group members neither registering nor opting-out shall not be permitted without leave to seek any benefit under settlement – where Court of Appeal authority conflict with Full Federal Court authority on the question.

Appealed from NSWCA: [2024] NSWCA 83; (2024) 114 NSWLR 81

Return to Top

Constitutional Law

Commonwealth of Australia v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors; His Honour Judge Salvatore Paul Vasta v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors

C3/2024; C4/2024: [2024] HCA Trans 52; [2024] HCA Trans 53

Date heard: 14 and 15 August 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – Chapter III Court – Judicial Immunity – Contempt order – Where Judge of Federal Circuit Court ("Judge"), incorrectly found Mr Stradford ("Mr S") in contempt and sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment – Where Mr S detained for six days – Where Full Court allowed Mr S' appeal and set aside contempt declaration and imprisonment order – Where Mr S commenced proceeding in Federal Court alleging false imprisonment by Judge – Where Federal Court held Judge liable for false imprisonment – Where Federal Court found Commonwealth and State of Queensland ("Queensland") vicariously liable – Where Mr S, Commonwealth and Queensland each appealed to Full Court of the Federal Court – Whether Judge liable to Mr S for tort of false imprisonment – Whether Federal Circuit Court of Australia had power to punish for contempt despite its designation as inferior court – Whether order for contempt by inferior court affected by jurisdictional error void ab initio – Whether Judge had same immunity as superior court judge with respect to making of contempt orders – Whether Federal Court erred in concluding Commonwealth and Queensland not afforded protection at common law from civil liability in circumstances where their respective officers executed imprisonment order and warrant issued by Circuit Court which appeared valid on their face – Whether Federal Court erred in concluding Circuit Court’s constitutionally derived power to punish contempts and its power under s 17 of Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) ousted or limited by Pts XIIIA and XIIIB of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether Federal Court erred in finding errors Judge made "outside" or "in excess of" jurisdiction and he had pre-judged outcome of hearing in relation to contempt orders.

Removed from Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia under s 40 of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

Return to Top

Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu (on behalf of the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group) & Ors

D5/2023: [2024] HCA Trans 48; [2024] HCA Trans 49; [2024] HCA Trans 50

Date heard: 7, 8 and 9 August 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – Constitution, s 51(xxxi) – Acquisition of property on just terms – Extinguishment of native title – Where principal proceeding is application for compensation under Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) for alleged effects of grants or legislative acts on native title in period after Northern Territory became territory of Commonwealth in 1911 and before enactment of Northern Territory Self-Government Act 1978 (Cth) – Whether Full Court erred by failing to find that just terms requirement contained in s 51(xxxi) of Constitution does not apply to laws enacted pursuant to s 122 of Constitution, including Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910 (Cth) and Ordinances made thereunder – Whether Wurridjal v Commonwealth (2009) 237 CLR 309 should be re-opened – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find that, on facts set out in appellant’s statement of claim, neither vesting of property in all minerals on or below surface of land in claim area in Crown, nor grants of special mineral leases capable of amounting to acquisitions of property under s 51(xxxi) of Constitution because native title inherently susceptible to valid exercise of Crown’s sovereign power to grant interests in land and to appropriate to itself unalienated land for Crown purposes.

Native title – Extinguishment – Reservations of minerals – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find that reservation of "all minerals" from grant of pastoral lease "had the consequence of creating rights of ownership" in respect of minerals in Crown, such that Crown henceforth had right of exclusive possession of minerals and could bring an action for intrusion.

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 75; (2023) 298 FCR 160; (2023) 410 ALR 231

Return to Top

CZA19 v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor

M66/2024: [2024] HCA Trans 81

Date heard: 14 November 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – immigration detention – whether limit on constitutionally permissible duration of immigration detention identified in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 applies to non-citizen detained under ss 189(1) and 196(1) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for purpose of considering whether to grant the person a visa where no real prospect of removal if person not granted a visa – where first respondent taken into immigration detention in December 2018 – where first respondent applied for protection visa and was refused by delegate – where AAT set aside delegate’s decision and remitted to delegate with direction that substantial grounds for believing first respondent would suffer significant harm if removed to Poland – where following decision in NZYQ  first respondent sought habeas corpus and mandamus in Federal Court seeking consideration of visa and declaratory relief regarding lawfulness of detention – where separate question referred for determination in Federal Court – where visa refused by applicant released on bridging visa – whether detention unlawful between November 2022 and release.

Removed into the High Court from Federal Court of Australia under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

Return to Top

DBD24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Anor

P34/2024: [2024] HCATrans 81

Date heard: 14 November 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – immigration detention – limit on constitutionally permissible duration of immigration detention identified in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 – where plaintiff arrived in Australia without valid visa and detained in immigration detention between 23 June 2023 and 1 October 2024 – where plaintiff applied for safe haven enterprise visa and was refused by delegate of first respondent – where on 18 December 2023 Administrative Appeals Tribunal remitted refusal and directed that substantial grounds for believing applicant at risk of significant harm if returned to Vietnam – where Tribunal ‘s decision a “protection finding” under s 197C(3)(b) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - where plaintiff granted protection visa and released from immigration detention on 1 October 2024 – whether constitutional limitation exceeded where alien has applied for visa and visa being considered in circumstance that visa applicant could not be removed in any event because of extant ‘protection finding’ under s 197C(3)(b) of Migration Act or where consideration of visa application takes unreasonably long time.

Special case referred to Full Court on 5 November 2024.

Return to Top

JZQQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor

B15/2024: [2024] HCA Trans 67; [2024] HCA Trans 68

Date heard: 9 and 10 October 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Direction principle – Where appellant born in Somalia and granted refugee status in New Zealand – Where appellant convicted of intentionally causing injury and making threats to kill and sentenced to aggregate term of 15 months imprisonment – Where appellant's Australian visa cancelled on basis he failed character test in s 501 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("Tribunal") affirmed non-revocation decision and concluded appellant did not pass character test – Where appellant lodged originating motion in Federal Court seeking judicial review – Where appellant released from immigration detention following Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 295 FCR 177 ("Pearson") – Where Full Federal Court in Pearson held aggregate sentence does not fall within s 501(7)(c) – Where appellant amended originating application raising Pearson ground – Where Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Act 2023 (Cth) ("Amending Act") amended Migration Act with retrospective effect to treat aggregate sentence as equivalent to sentence for single offence for purposes of s 501(7)(c) – Where appellant re-detained under Amending Act – Where Full Court held Tribunal's decision and Amending Act valid – Whether Amending Act beyond legislative power of Commonwealth Parliament by directing courts as to conclusions they should reach in exercise of their jurisdiction – Whether Amending Act denies court exercising jurisdiction under, or derived from, s 75(v) of Constitution, ability to enforce limits which Parliament has expressly or impliedly set on decision-making power.

Immigration – Visas – Cancellation – Application for judicial review – Whether decision made by Tribunal under s 43 of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) capable of meeting Amending Act’s description of decision made "under" Migration Act – Whether appellant's aggregate sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment is "term of imprisonment of 12 months or more" within meaning of s 501(7)(c) of Migration Act 1958.

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 168; (2023) 300 FCR 370; (2023) 413 ALR 620

Return to Top

Pearson v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors

S126/2023: [2024] HCA Trans 67; [2024] HCA Trans 68

Date heard: 9 and 10 October 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Usurpation or interference with Commonwealth judicial power – Where plaintiff New Zealand national – Where plaintiff convicted of offences including supply of prohibited drug and sentenced to aggregate term of imprisonment of four years and three months – Where plaintiff's Australian visa cancelled on basis she failed character test in s 501 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and upheld on appeal – Where plaintiff commenced fresh proceeding in original jurisdiction of Federal Court seeking judicial review – Where Full Court held aggregate sentence not "a term of imprisonment" within meaning of s 501(7)(c) and plaintiff released from immigration detention – Where plaintiff re-detained following commencement of Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Act 2023 (Cth) ("Amending Act") – Whether Amending Act invalid usurpation of, or interference with, judicial power of Commonwealth – Whether Amending Act does not operate to validate decision of third defendant because decision not "a thing" done under Migration Act, but "a thing" done under s 43 of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

Constitutional law – Powers of Commonwealth Parliament – Acquisition of property on just terms – Whether Amending Act invalid acquisition by Commonwealth of plaintiff's right to sue Commonwealth for false imprisonment other than on just terms, contrary to s 51(xxxi) of Constitution.

Special case referred to the Full Court on 7 March 2024.

Return to Top

Tapiki v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

P10/2024: [2024] HCA Trans 67; [2024] HCA Trans 68

Date heard: 9 and 10 October 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Usurpation or interference with Commonwealth judicial power – Where appellant New Zealand national – Where appellant's Australian visa purportedly cancelled under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where appellant sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment imposed in September 2020 – Where delegate considered appellant had "been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more" within meaning of s 501(7)(c) – Where appellant unsuccessfully sought revocation of cancellation – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("Tribunal") affirmed non-revocation decision – Where appellant released from immigration detention following decision in Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 295 FCR 177 ("Pearson") – Where appellant succeeded in Full Federal Court on appeal and in original jurisdiction, declaring Tribunal's decision and cancellation decision invalid – Where following Pearson, Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Act 2023 (Cth) ("Amending Act") enacted – Where appellant taken back into immigration detention after commencement of Amending Act – Where appellant commenced proceedings in original jurisdiction of Federal Court for declaration items 4(3), 4(4) and 4(5)(b)(i) of Amending Act invalid, and writ of habeas corpus – Where Full Court dismissed application – Whether Full Court erred in not finding relevant items of Amending Act invalid usurpation or interference with judicial power of Commonwealth by reversing or dissolving effect of orders made by Chapter III court.

Constitutional law – Powers of Commonwealth Parliament – Acquisition of property on just terms – Whether Full Court erred in not finding relevant item of Amending Act effectuated acquisition of property other than on just terms contrary to s 51(xxxi) of Constitution by extinguishing cause of action for false imprisonment.

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 167; (2023) 300 FCR 354; (2023) 413 ALR 605

Return to Top

Costs

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

S52/2024: [2024] HCATrans 72

Date heard: 17 October 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Costs – General rule that self-represented litigants cannot recover costs for own time – Whether partners of unincorporated law firm entitled to recover costs for work done by employed solicitors of that firm in proceedings brought by or against partners of firm – Whether Court of Appeal erred finding first and second respondents able to recover costs of employed solicitors in proceedings in which they were self-represented solicitor litigants by their unincorporated law firm – Whether Court of Appeal erred finding s 98(1) of Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ("CPA") and definition of costs in s 3(1) authorised recovery of costs – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding employed solicitor rule operated to authorise recovery of costs – Whether Court of Appeal erred in declining to follow United Petroleum v Herbert Smith Freehills [2020] VSCA 15 in applying CPA to recovery of costs by employed solicitors of self-represented solicitor litigants.

Appealed from NSWSC (CA): [2023] NSWCA 312; (2023) 113 NSWLR 305

Return to Top

Criminal law

The King v ZT

S38/2024: [2024] HCATrans 82

Date heard: 15 November 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Unreasonable verdict – Joint criminal enterprise – Where respondent found guilty at trial of party to murder – Where case against him founded upon series of admissions made as to involvement in killing – Where respondent's accounts numerous and inconsistent – Where respondent successfully appealed conviction to Court of Criminal Appeal on ground jury's verdict unreasonable – Where Court of Criminal Appeal majority found admissions not sufficiently reliable to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal majority erred in concluding jury enjoyed no relevant or significant advantage over appellate court – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal majority erred in its application of test in M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.

Appealed from NSWSC (CCA): [2023] NSWCCA 241

Return to Top

Damages

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

S169/2023; [2024] HCATrans 58; [2024] HCA Trans 59

Date heard: 4 and 5 September 2024

Coram: Gordon A-CJ, Edelman, Steward, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Damages – Patent litigation – Compensation for loss flowing from interlocutory injunction – Where respondent held patent for clopidogrel – Where interlocutory injunction obtained restraining generic supplier from entering market – Where generic supplier undertook not to seek Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ("PBS") listing – Where respondent undertook to compensate persons adversely affected by injunction – Where respondent's patent subsequently found invalid – Where Commonwealth sought recovery of additional subsidies provided to respondent due to non-listing of generic clopidogrel – Where primary judge dismissed Commonwealth's application, and Full Court dismissed appeal by Commonwealth – Whether Full Court erred in failing to hold Commonwealth’s evidential burden was to establish prima facie case that its loss flowed directly from interlocutory injunction with evidential burden shifted to respondents to establish that generic supplier would not have sought listing on PBS even if not enjoined – Whether Full Court erred in failing to hold Commonwealth discharged its evidential burden but respondents did not – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find, by inference from evidence, that in absence of interlocutory injunction, it was likely that Dr Sherman would have reconfirmed plan to seek PBS listing.

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 97; (2023) 411 ALR 315; (2023) 174 IPR 66

Return to Top

Elisha v Vision Australia Limited

M22/2024: [2024] HCATrans 71

Date heard: 16 October 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Damages – Contract – Breach – Psychiatric injury – Where appellant entered employment contract with respondent – Where during hotel stay while performing his work duties, appellant involved in incident with hotel proprietor – Where appellant's employment terminated for alleged "serious misconduct" – Where appellant developed major depressive disorder, which trial judge found caused by dismissal – Where appellant sued for damages, claiming alleged breaches of due process provision contained in clause 47.5 of Vision Australia Unified Enterprise Agreement 2013 and respondent's "disciplinary procedure" – Where appellant claimed respondent's duty of care extended to discipline and termination procedures – Where at trial, appellant succeeded in contract and failed in negligence – Where Court of Appeal held respondent did not owe alleged duty of care, and affirmed trial judge's finding in respect of contract claim – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding damages for psychiatric injury suffered by appellant not recoverable for breach of contract.

Tort – Negligence – Duty of care owed by employers – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding respondent did not owe duty to take reasonable care to avoid injury to appellant in its implementation of processes leading to and resulting in termination of his employment.

Appealed from VSC (CA): [2023] VSCA 265; (2023) 328 IR 299

Return to Top

Equity

Kramer & Anor v Stone

S53/2024: [2024] HCA Trans 63

Date heard: 11 September 2023

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Gleeson, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Equity – Proprietary estoppel – Estoppel by encouragement – Knowledge of detriment – Where in 1975, respondent commenced share-farming 100-acre property situated on Colo River ("Property") under oral contract described as share-farming agreement – Where shortly after death of then-joint proprietor, his wife ("deceased") told  respondent about agreement to pass Property and sum of money to respondent upon deceased's death – Where under her final will, deceased left Property to one of couple's two daughters, first appellant – Where primary judge held respondent established entitlement to equitable relief on basis of proprietary estoppel and characterised case as based upon estoppel by encouragement –Where primary judge found respondent acted to his detriment on faith of deceased's assurance by continuing share farming operation on Property for about 23 years in belief that he would inherit Property under deceased’s will – Where primary judge found in absence of such belief, respondent would have terminated share-farming agreement and pursued more remunerative occupation – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred concluding in cases of proprietary estoppel by encouragement elements of encouragement coupled with reasonable and detrimental reliance are sufficient, without more, to establish unconscionable conduct.

Appealed from NSWSC (CA): [2023] NSWCA 270; (2023) 112 NSWLR 564

Return to Top

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

S26/2024: [2024] HCATrans 69

Date heard: 11 October 2024

Coram: Gagler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Equity – Fiduciary duty – Fiduciary duty between former and successor trustees – Duties of trustees – Where first respondent successor trustee – Where second respondent sole director and shareholder of former trustee – Where former trustee appointed in June 2005  – Where in November 2006, appellant commenced proceedings against former trustee seeking damages of $2 million – Where first respondent replaced former trustee by way of deed of appointment – Where former trustee promised indemnity from first respondent as successor trustee – Where former trustee wound up because of claim for $2,500, with effect appellant's pending proceedings stayed – Where legal title to trust assets transferred to first respondent as trustee – Where on March 2014, default judgment entered in favour of appellant against former trustee – Where judgment set aside by consent, and proceedings reheard in December 2014 – Where on 25 February 2016, primary judge made orders entering judgment for appellant against former trustee in amount of $3.4 million and declared former trustee entitled to be indemnified out of trust assets – Where in meantime, trust assets dissipated by first respondent at discretion of third respondent – Where other respondents either knowingly involved in conduct or received trust property – Where primary judge found first respondent breached fiduciary duties, and other respondents either knowingly involved in the conduct or received trust property – Where Court of Appeal majority held first respondent did not owe fiduciary obligation at any time – Whether Court of Appeal majority erred in concluding first respondent as successor trustee did not owe fiduciary duty to former trustee not to deal with trust assets so as to destroy, diminish or jeopardise former trustee’s right of indemnity or exoneration from those assets.

Appealed from NSWSC (CA): [2023] NSWCA 214; (2023) 112 NSWLR 318; (2023) 21 BPR 44,317

Appealed from NSWSC (CA): [2023] NSWCA 254

Return to Top

Immigration

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

M44/2024: [2024] HCA Trans 57

Date heard: 3 September 2024

Coram: Gordon A-CJ, Edelman, Steward, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Immigration – Visas – Cancellation – Notice of cancellation decision – Legal incapacity from acting on notice – Where delegate of Minister cancelled appellant's visa under s 501 (3A) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where s 501CA(3) provided after making decision, Minister must give person written notice that sets out original decision and invite person to make representations to Minister – Where written notice for purposes of s 501CA(3) handed to appellant, who at relevant time in psychiatric unit of Correctional Centre – Where subsequent to notification, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal made order under s 30 of Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic) appointing Public Advocate as guardian of appellant – Where appellant commenced proceeding in Federal Circuit Court seeking judicial review of Minister's decision to give 501CA(3) notice – Where primary judge and Full Court dismissed application and appeal – Whether Full Court erred failing to find not "practicable" within meaning of s 501CA(3) for Minister's delegate to give appellant notice in circumstances where appellant lacked decision-making capacity – Whether, alternatively, Full Court erred failing to find further notice could be issued to appellant, after guardian appointed for him under Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic) – Whether legally unreasonable for Minister not to give further notice in circumstances where appellant now able to make representations about revocation of cancellation of his visa by his guardian.

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 201; (2023) 301 FCR 229

Return to Top

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Ors v MZAPC

P21/2024: [2024] HCA Trans 51; [2024] HCATrans 80

Date heard: 13 August and 13 November 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Immigration – Duty to remove unlawful citizen as soon as reasonably practicable – Personal and non-compellable powers of Minister – Where respondent's visa cancelled in November 2015 – Where respondent in immigration detention and exhausted all rights of review and appeal in relation to his immigration status – Where primary judge made orders restraining appellants from performing duty imposed by s 198(6) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to remove respondent from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable – Where primary judge concluded following this Court's decision in Davis v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 10, serious question to be tried as to whether officers of Department had, acting beyond power, made assessments of respondent’s circumstances against ministerial guidelines concerning referral of cases to Minister for personal consideration under ss 195A and 417 of Act – Where Full Court majority upheld primary judge's decision – Whether Full Court erred concluding primary judge had power to grant interlocutory injunction restraining respondent’s removal from Australia.

Practice and procedure – Interlocutory injunction restraining removal from Australia – Serious question to be tried.

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2024] FCAFC 34; (2024) 302 FCR 159

Return to Top

Native Title

Stuart & Ors v State of South Australia & Ors

A1/2024: [2024] HCA Trans 77; [2024] HCA Trans 78

Date heard: 6 and 7 November 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Native title – Extinguishment – Proper construction of "native title" in s 223(1) Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ("NTA") – Overlapping claims – Where appellants together comprise applicant in native title determination under s 61 of NTA made on behalf of Arabana people in March 2013 over area in vicinity of township of Oodnadatta in South Australia – Where over subsequent five years different claim group, Walka Wani people, made two claims concerning same area ("overlap area") – Where in January 1998 Arabana made claim over area abutting overlap area, resulting in consent determination in 2012 in favour of Arabana in Dodd v State of South Australia [2012] FCA 519 ("Dodd") – Where overlap area omitted from 1998 claim area because Arabana believed different accommodation of their rights in overlap area would be made by state government – Where primary judge dismissed Arabana claim and made determination of native title in favour of Walka Wani – Where appellants unsuccessfully appealed orders dismissing Arabana Claim to Full Court – Whether Full Court majority erred by not finding trial judge failed to correctly construe and apply definition of "native title" in s 223(1) when dismissing Arabana’s native title determination application – Whether Full Court erred by treating all aspects of determination in Dodd as being geographically specific.

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 131; (2023) 299 FCR 507; (2023) 412 ALR 407

Return to Top

Practice and Procedure

Bogan & Anor v The Estate of Peter John Smedley (Deceased) & Ors

M21/2024: [2024] HCATrans 79

Date heard: 12 November 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Practice and Procedure – Transfer of proceedings – Group costs order – Where Victoria legislated to permit costs orders calculated as percentage of judgment or settlement in representative proceedings – Where provision unique to Victoria – Where appellants commenced representative proceedings in Supreme Court of Victoria against respondents – Where fifth respondent applied to transfer proceedings to Supreme Court of NSW under s 1337H of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Where appellants applied for group costs order ("GCO") under s 33ZDA of Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) – Where Supreme Court directed GCO application be determined before transfer application, and later made GCO – Where fifth respondent's first removal application to High Court dismissed – Where fifth respondent referred transfer application to Victorian Court of Appeal for provision of reasons without final orders – Where Court of Appeal held proceedings should not be transferred to Supreme Court of NSW – Where fifth respondent successfully made second removal application to High Court – Whether GCO made under s 33ZDA of Supreme Court Act relevant in deciding whether to transfer proceedings to another court under s 1337H(2) of Corporations Act – Whether GCO will remain in force if proceedings are transferred to Supreme Court of NSW – Whether Supreme Court of NSW would have power to vary or revoke GCO if proceedings transferred – Whether proceedings should be transferred to Supreme Court of NSW.

Removed into the High Court from Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) on 7 March 2024.

Return to Top

Torts

Pafburn Pty Limited (ACN 003 485 505) & Anor v The Owners - Strata Plan No 84674

S54/2024: [2024] HCATrans 70

Date heard: 15 October 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Torts – Statutory duty of care for construction work – Proportionate liability – Apportionable claims – Where second appellant retained first appellant to design and construct building – Where respondent sued appellants for damages under Pt 4 of Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) ("DBPA") alleging defective works in common property – Where appellants pleaded proportionate liability defences under Pt 4 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("CLA") – Where respondent sought to strike out paragraphs of appellants' pleadings on basis s 5Q CLA operates so claims under Pt 4 DBPA are not apportionable – Where primary judge held proportionate liability defence could be pleaded – Where Court of Appeal held proportionate liability cannot apply as defence to respondent’s claim under Pt 4 DBPA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding s 5Q of CLA enlivened by cause of action brought under Pt 4 of DBPA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding s 39 of DBPA implicitly excludes application of Pt 4 of CLA to claims under Pt 4 of DBPA – Whether, alternatively, if s 5Q of CLA is enlivened by cause of action under Pt 4 of DBPA, Court of Appeal erred in concluding no apportionment is to occur.

Appealed from NSWSC (CA): [2023] NSWCA 301; (2023) 113 NSWLR 105

Return to Top

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

S24/2024: [2024] HCA Trans 52; [2024] HCA Trans 53

Date heard: 14 and 15 August 2024

Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ

Catchwords:

Torts – False imprisonment – Contempt order – Where second respondent incorrectly found first respondent in contempt and sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment – Where first respondent detained for six days – Where officers of appellant took and held first respondent in custody – Where Full Court allowed first respondent's appeal and set aside contempt declaration and imprisonment order – Where first respondent commenced proceeding in Federal Court alleging false imprisonment by second respondent – Where Federal Court held second respondent liable for false imprisonment – Where Federal Court found third respondent and appellant vicariously liable – Where third respondent, second respondent and appellant each appealed to Full Court of the Federal Court – Whether appellant liable to first respondent for tort of false imprisonment – Whether Federal Court erred in concluding third respondent and appellant not afforded protection at common law from civil liability in circumstances where their respective officers executed imprisonment order and warrant issued by Circuit Court which appeared valid on their face – Whether Federal Court erred in concluding s 249 of Criminal Code (Qld) did not apply to warrant issued by Federal Circuit Court, and Court ought to have held ss 247, 249 and 250, which together relevantly provide for limited immunity for persons executing sentences passed and warrants issued without authority, applied to Queensland’s officers executing warrant and imprisonment order.

Removed from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia

Return to Top

4: Original Jurisdiction

The following cases are ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia.

Constitutional Law

Cherry v State of Queensland
B11/2024

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – separation of powers – judicial power – where plaintiff convicted of two counts of murder in 2002 and sentenced to life imprisonment with mandatory minimum non-parole period of 20 years – where body of second victim never located – where in 2021 new provisions inserted into Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) (“CSA”) to amend “no body-no parole” scheme and introducing new “restricted prisoners” regime – where President of Parole Board of Queensland may make “no co-operation” declaration under s 175L of CSA in respect of a “no body – no parole” prisoner where remains of victim not found and where Board not satisfied prisoner has given “satisfactory co-operation” – where effect of declaration is that prisoner may not apply for parole notwithstanding parole eligibility date set by sentencing judge – where under s 175E of CSA President of Parole Board can make declaration about restricted prisoner (relevantly defined as prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment for more than one conviction of murder) – where effect of declaration is that prisoner may not apply for parole other than in “exceptional circumstances parole” under s 1767 – where plaintiff subject to “no co-operation” declaration and liable for “restricted prisoner” declaration if former lapses – validity of provisions under Ch 5, Divs 1 and 2 CSA – whether ss 175L and 175E CSA invalid as enabling Queensland executive to impermissibly interfere with exercise of judicial power by State Courts contrary to principle established in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (1996) 189 CLR 51.

Special case referred to Full Court on 27 September 2024

Return to Top

MJZP v Director-General of Security & Anor

S142/2023

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Procedural fairness – Where plaintiff company is carriage service provider within meaning of Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) – Where in June 2021 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation ("ASIO") furnished to Minister for Home Affairs adverse security assessment in respect of plaintiff in connection with s 315A of Telecommunications Act – Where plaintiff applied to Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("Tribunal") for review of adverse security assessment – Where Minister made various certifications under Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ("AAT Act") that disclosure of certain documents and evidence contrary to public interest – Where Tribunal provided open reasons to plaintiff and first defendant, and closed reasons only to first defendant – Where plaintiff appealed to Federal Court of Australia – Where s 46(1) of AAT Act requires Tribunal to send to Federal Court all documents before Tribunal in connexion with proceeding, including documents subject to certificates issued by Minister – Where s 46(2) of AAT Act requires Federal Court to ensure matter subject to certificates not disclosed to any person other than member of Federal Court for purposes of appeal – Whether s 46(2) substantially impairs institutional integrity of Federal Court – Whether s 46(2) requires Federal Court to exercise Commonwealth judicial power in manner inconsistent with nature of that power – Whether s 46(2) invalid on basis it infringes Ch III of Constitution.

Special case referred to the Full Court on 4 June 2024.

Return to Top

Ravbar & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors
S113/2024

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – invalidity – implied freedom of political communication – acquisition of property on just terms – where first and second plaintiffs office bearers of Construction and General Division (“C&G Division) of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union – where s 333A(1) of Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) (“FWRO Act”) provides C&G Division and each of its branches placed into administration from earliest time that both a legislative instrument made under s 333B(1) and appointment of administrator under s 323C in force – where s 323B(1) empowers Minister to determine scheme for administration of C&G Division and branches if satisfied in public interest – whether Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Act 2024 (Cth) (“Administration Act”) and provisions it inserted into Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) sufficiently connected to head of power in s 51 Constitution – whether impugned provisions infringe implied freedom of political communication – whether Fair Work (Registered Organisations) (CFMEU Construction and General Division Administration) Determination 2024 invalid as unsupported by s 323B FWRO Act as partially disapplied or otherwise read down as to not infringe implied freedom of political communication – whether s 323B FWRO Act and Administration Act purport to confer judicial power of Commonwealth on Minister and thereby inconsistent with Ch III of Constitution – whether ss 323K(1) and 323M FWRO Act effect acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms contrary to s 51(xxxi) of Constitution.

Special case referred to Full Court on 18 October 2024

Return to Top

5: Section 40 Removal

The following cases have been removed into the High Court of Australia under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

Constitutional Law

G Global 120E T2 Pty Ltd as trustee for the G Global 120E AUT v Commissioner of State Revenue

G Global 180Q Pty Ltd as trustee for the G Global 180Q AUT v Commissioner of State Revenue

B48/2024; B49/2024; B50/2024

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – state taxation - validity of Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Act 2024 (Cth) which inserted s 5(3) into International Tax Agreements Act 1953 (Cth) which provides that operation of a provision of a bilateral tax agreement provided for in s 5(1) “is subject to anything inconsistent with the provision contained in a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, that imposed a tax other than an Australian tax, unless expressly provided otherwise in that law – where s 5(3) expressed to operate with retrospective effect – whether s 5(3) supported by head of Commonwealth legislative power insofar as it purports to apply to taxes imposed by State laws – whether, if so, at 24(4) of Agreement between Australian and Federal Republic of Germany for elimination of double taxing with respect to taxes on income and capital and prevention of fiscal evasion and avoidance – where first respondent imposed foreign land tax surcharge under s 32(1)(b)(ii) of Land Tax Act 2010 (Qld) on basis that first respondent a foreign company or trustee of foreign trust – where first respondent contended this had effect of imposing more burdensome taxation on enterprise carried on by resident of Australia the capital of which partly owned by resident(s) of Germany than on other similar enterprises carried on by Australian resident contrary to art 24(4) of German Agreement.

Removed into the High Court from Supreme Court of Queensland under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) on 26 August 2024

Return to Top

6: Special Leave Granted

The following cases have been granted special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

Aviation Law

Evans & Anor v Air Canada ABN 29094769561
S138/2024; [2024] HCASL 270

Date determined: 10 October 2024 – Special leave granted

Catchwords:

Aviation law – international carriage of passengers by air – Unification of Certain Rules of International Carriage by Air 1999 (”Montreal Convention”) – where appellants sought damages in Supreme Court of New South Wales for injuries allegedly suffered from turbulence on Air Canada flight from Vancouver to Australia under art 17 of Montreal Convention (incorporated into Australian law under s 9B Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) – where respondent pleaded it was not liable for damages exceeding “113,100 Special Drawing Rights” in accordance with art 21 of Montreal Convention – where appellants relied on rule 105(C)(1)(a) of Air Canada’s International Tariff General Rules which stipulated there were no financial limits on compensatory damages recoverable in respect of bodily injuries – where Court of Appeal found rule 105(C)(1)(a) did not have effect of waiving defence created by art 21 – whether Court of Appeal erred in construing arts 17, 21 and 25 of Montreal Convent ion by treating rule 105(C)(1)(a) as form of consumer notification rather than term of contract of carriage – whether Court of Appeal erred in holding stipulation in rule 105(C)(1)(a) did not preclude financial limit under art 21(2) in cases where damages would exceed a monetary or financial amount and carrier proves no fault – whether Court of Appeal erred in not holding operation of rule 105(C)(1)(a) constitutes a stipulation for purposes of art 25 and displaced application of art 21(2) of Montreal Convention.

Appealed from NSWCA: [2024] NSWCA 153

Return to Top

Civil Procedure

DZY (a pseudonym) v Trustees of the Christian Brothers

M81/2024; [2024] HCASL 245

Date determined: 5 September 2024 – Special leave granted on limited grounds

Catchwords:

Civil procedure – limitation of actions – application to set aside deeds of settlement under s 27QE of Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) – where appellant entered into two deeds of settlement relating to sexual abuse alleged against Christian Brothers in school run by respondent – where appellant later commenced proceedings seeking damages from respondent for economic loss caused by abuse – where respondent claimed settlements should not be set aside because it would have pleaded limitation defence and “Ellis” defence that unincorporated association not solvent legal entity capable of being sued (Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church v Ellis (2007) 70 NSWLR 565) – where primary judge allowed claim to proceed – where Court of Appeal set aside primary judge’s decision – whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in finding power in s 27QE Limitation of Actions Act not enlivened unless claimant establishes that limitation or Ellis defence had material impact on or was leading factor in decision to settle – whether Court of Appeal misapplied correctness standard of appellate review in Warren v Coombs (1979) 142 CLR 531.

Appealed from VSCA: [2024] VSCA 73

Return to Top

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

S120/2024: [2024] HCASL 230

Date determined: 5 September 2024 – Special leave granted on conditions

Catchwords:

Civil procedure – standing – where respondent environmental organisation brought civil enforcement proceedings seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against respondent in relation to certain forestry operations on basis of impact on three species of glider – where primary judge found respondent lacked standing because of no “special interest” in subject matter – where Court of Appeal set aside decision on basis that clear language required to abrogate or curtail fundamental rights – whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that on proper construction of Forestry Act 2012 (NSW), ss 69SB and 69ZA and Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW), ss 13, 14 and 13.14A private entities have standing to bring civil enforcement proceedings for alleged breach of integrated forestry operations agreement – whether there is presumption of standing to bring proceedings for alleged breach by third party where private person or entity has “special interest” unless abrogated by statute.

Appealed from NSWCA: [2024] NSWCA 113

Return to Top

Competition Law

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
B41/2024; B42/2024: [2024] HCASL 182

Date determined: 8 August 2024 – Special leave granted

Catchwords:

Competition law – giving effect to arrangement or arriving at understanding containing provision preventing or hindering acquisition of services from a subcontractor – Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 45E(3) – where Hutchison construction company and head contractor on large construction project – where CFMEU a trade union for purposes of Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) – where appellant alleged contravention of s 45E(3) and 45E of Competition and Consumer Act by first respondent making and giving effect to understanding with second respondent that it would terminate its sub-contract or cease acquiring services from third party on project – where second respondent alleged to have been knowingly concerned in or party to contravention by threatening industrial action if first respondent did not cease using third party – where primary judge found evidence established respondents entered into arrangement of understanding – where Full Federal Court allowed appeal – whether Full Court found that merely succumbing to threat of industrial action insufficient to give rise to arrangement or understanding – whether making or arriving at arrangement or understanding within meaning of s 45E(3) requires communication of assent that precedes and is distinct from conduct that gives effect or arrangement or understanding.

Appealed from FCAFC: [2024] FCAFC 18; (2024) 302 FCR 79

Return to Top

Constitutional Law

State of New South Wales v Wojciechowska & Ors

S39/2024: [2024] HCASL 63

Date determined: 7 March 2024 – Special leave granted with undertakings

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – Judicial Power of Commonwealth – Where first respondent resided in Tasmania – Where first respondent commenced various proceedings in New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") against third and fourth respondents, emanations of State of New South Wales – Where first respondent sought review of various decisions and conduct under Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) ("GIPA Act") and Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act1998 (NSW) ("PPIP Act") – Where claim included claim for damages under s 52(2)(a) PPIP Act – Where first respondent challenged jurisdiction of Tribunal on basis functions performed by Tribunal when determining administrative review applications under GIPA Act and PPIP Act involved exercise of judicial power – Where Court of Appeal held determining administrative review under GIPA Act did not involve exercise of judicial power – Where Court of Appeal held determination of application for damages under s 55(2)(a) of PPIP Act brought by out-of-state resident would involve Tribunal exercising judicial power of Commonwealth – Whether Burns v Corbett (2018) 265 CLR 304 applies to exercise of non-judicial power – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Tribunal, when performing at instance of out-of-State resident claiming damages review of public sector agency conduct under Pt 5 of PPIP Act and Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) exercises Commonwealth judicial power.

Courts – State tribunals – Jurisdiction.

Appealed from NSWSC (CA): [2023] NSWCA 191; (2023) 379 FLR 256

Return to Top

Criminal Law

KMD v CEO (Department of Health NT) & Ors
D2/2024; [2024] HCASL 271

Date determined: 10 October 2024 – Special leave granted on limited grounds

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 – proper standard of appellate review to be applied – whether majority in finding correctness standard rather than House v King standard applied – whether majority erred in ordering custodial supervision order be confirmed without providing appellant with further hearing or opportunity to adduce evidence relevant to risk based on time she spent in community following primary judge’s decision in circumstances where conduct of appeal gave rise to reasonable expectation that if CCA found error she would be afforded further hearing – whether majority erred in ordering custodial supervision order without any evidence relevant to risk arising from appellant’s time in community – whether majority erred in holding primary judge’s periodic review miscarried because appellant refused to engage with one of persons who prepared report under s 43ZN(2)(a) of Criminal Code.

Appealed from NTCCA: [2024] NTCCA 8

Return to Top

The King v Batak
S148/2024: [2024] HCASL 304

Date determined: 7 November 2024 – Special leave granted

Catchwords:

Criminal law – complicity – accessorial liability – whether common law principles of complicity apply to offence of murder under s 18(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in concluding it was error of law to permit constructive law to be left to jury on basis of accessorial liability – whether accessory before the fact to constructive murder an offence known to law in New South Wales – if so, whether mental element differs depending on whether act causing death coincides with physical elements of foundational offence of whether a distinct act.

Appealed from NSWCCA: [2024] NSWCCA 66

Return to Top

The King v Ryan Churchill (a pseudonym)
M94/2024; [2024] HCASL 283

Date determined: 7 November 2024 – Special leave granted

Catchwords:

Criminal law – evidence – hearsay – Evidence Act 1996 (Vic) – where appellant convicted of two counts of incest - evidence given of complainant’s representation to another person of having been sexually assaulted – where evidence led that complainant distressed when making representation – where Court of Appeal allowed appeal and held trial judge should have warned jury that evidence of such distress “generally carried little weight” – whether Court of Appeal erred in holding such direction should have been given – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding substantial miscarriage of justice because trial judge did not specifically direct jury they could not use evidence of distress unless first finding link between distress and alleged offending.

Appealed from VSCA: [2024] VSCA 151

Return to Top

Criminal Practice

Brawn v The King

A20/2024: [2024] HCASL 250

Date determined: 5 September 2024 – Special leave granted

Catchwords:

Criminal practice – appeal – miscarriage of justice – prosecution duty of disclosure – where appellant found guilty of one count of maintaining sexual relationship with child – where defence case was that complainant lied about identity of abuser – where, after trial, prosecution disclosed that appellant’s father had been charged with six counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with different child – whether Court or Appeal erred in finding that breach of duty of disclosure did not lead to miscarriage of justice for purpose of s 158(1)(c) Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) because appellant would not have conducted trial differently – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding appellant conceded that non-disclosure did deprive him of opportunity to adduce evidence relating to father – proper approach to ‘miscarriage of justice’ for purposes of s 158(1)(c) Criminal Procedure Act.

Appealed from SASCA: [2022] SASCA 96; (2022) 141 SASR 465

Return to Top

Evidence

MDP v The King

B72/2023: [2023] HCASL 215

Date determined: 7 December 2023 – Special leave granted

Catchwords:

Evidence – Propensity evidence – Miscarriage of justice – Where appellant convicted of various child sexual assault and domestic violence offences against former partner’s daughter – Where evidence included evidence from complainant’s sister that appellant smacked complainant on bottom – Where trial judge directed jury if they accepted bottom slapping evidence was true, and that it displayed sexual interest of appellant in complainant beyond reasonable doubt, they could use it to reason that it was more likely that offences occurred – Where Court of Appeal found bottom slapping evidence did not meet test for admissibility of propensity evidence – Where Court of appeal found evidence admissible under s 132B of Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) ("evidence of domestic violence") – Whether Court of Appeal erred holding that no miscarriage of justice occurred when evidence inadmissible as propensity evidence was nonetheless left to jury to be used as propensity evidence.

Appealed from QLDSC (CA): [2023] QCA 134

Return to Top

Immigration

FEL17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

S107/2024: [2024] HCASL 197

Date determined: 8 August 2024 – Special leave granted

Catchwords:

Immigration – protection visas – invalid application – where appellant applied for protection visa and was refused by delegate – where AAT affirmed delegate’s decision – where Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection exercised power under s 417(1) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to substitute “another decision” for Tribunal’s decision and granted appellate a three month visitor visa with no further stay condition – where appellate subsequently made second application for protection visa – where delegate found application invalid under s 48A – whether majority of Full Federal Court erred in finding application invalid and barred by s 48A.

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 153

Return to Top

Industrial Law

Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley & Ors

S119/2024: [2024] HCASL 221

Date determined: 5 September 2024 – Special leave granted

Catchwords:

Industrial law – unfair dismissal – genuine redundancy – redeployment – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 385(b), 389(2) – where s 385(d) provides applicant for unfair dismissal remedy must demonstrate dismissal not case of genuine redundancy – where s 389(2) provides no genuine redundancy if reasonable in all the circumstances to redeploy employee within employer’s enterprise – where respondent scaled back mining operations and terminated respondents’ employment – whether Full Federal Court erred in construing s389(2) as authorising Fair Work Commission to inquire into whether employer could have made alternative changes to enterprise (including by terminating other operational or staffing arrangements) so as to make position available to otherwise redundant employee – whether determination of genuine redundancy discretionary decision reviewable only for House v King error.

Appealed from FCAFC: [2024] FCAFC 45; (2024) 302 FCR 589

Return to Top

Land Law

La Perouse Local Aboriginal Council ABN 89136607167 & Anor v Quarry Street Pty Ltd ACN 616184117 & Anor

S121/2024: [2024] HCASL 228

Date determined: 5 September 2024 – Special leave granted

Catchwords:

Land law – indigenous land rights – Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW), s 36 – claimable Crown land – where second respondent Minister proved in part an Aboriginal land claim in relation to Crown Land in Paddington – where first respondent lessee of site described as “Paddington Bowling Club” but site fallen into disuse other than “oral sublease” over small portion of land – where land subject to reservation of Crown land under s 87 Crown Lands Act 1989 (NSW) for use as community and sporting club facilities and tourist facilities and services – where first respondent unsuccessfully sought judicial review of Minister’s decision to approve claim – where Court of Appeal allowed appeal – where Court of Appeal found land being “used” for purposes of s 36(1) of Aboriginal Land Rights Act such that land was not “claimable Crown land” – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding Minister required to find land was “claimable Crown land” – whether concept of “use” in s 36(1)(b) requires examination of activities on claimed land as opposed to away from or in relation to claimed land – whether definition of “land” in s 4(1) has result that “use” of “any estate or interest” in respect of land either individually or cumulatively will satisfy s 36(1)(b) – whether leasing of land by Crown a “use” within s 36()(b).

Appealed from NSWCA: [2024] NSWCA 107

Return to Top

Land valuation

Valuer-General Victoria v WSTI Properties 490 SKR Pty Ltd
M96/2024; [2024] HCASL 284

Date determined: 7 November 2024 – Special leave granted on conditions

Catchwords:

Land valuation – assessment of land value under Valuation of Land Act 1960 (Vic) – where respondent owner of land subject to heritage-related planning restrictions – where house built in 1897 on land – where respondent successfully objected to valuations in Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – where valuation required assumption that improvements had not been made – where improvements defined in s 2(1) of Valuation of Land Act as “all work actually done or material used on and for the benefit of the land, but only in so far as the effect of the work done or material used increases the value of the land” – proper time for assessment of improvements – whether Court of Appeal erred in construing defining of “improvement” as requiring that effect of work done or material used increased value of land at time that work actually done or material used.

Appealed from VSCA: [2024] VSCA 157

Return to Top

Representative proceedings

Kain v R&B Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the R&B Pension Fund & Ors; Ernst & Young (a Firm) ABN 75 288 172 749 v R&B Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the R&B Pension Fund & Ors;
Shand v R&B Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the R&B Penson Fund & Ors

S146/2024; S144/2024; S143/2024; [2024] HCASL 286

Date determined: 7 November 2024 – Special leave granted

Catchwords:

Representative proceedings – common fund orders – open class securities action – application for approval of notice to group members prior to opt-out – where question reserved for Full Federal Court under s 25(6) of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) whether under Pt IVA of Act Court has power upon settlement or judgment of representative proceeding to make common fund order for distribution of funds to solicitor otherwise than as payment for costs and disbursements incurred in conduct of proceeding – whether Full Court erred in answer question in affirmative.

Appealed from FCAFC: [2024] FCAFC 89; (2024) 304 FCR 395

Return to Top

Statutes

CD & Anor v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) & Anor
A24/2024; [2024] HCASL 297

Date determined: 7 November 2024 – Special leave granted

Catchwords:

Statutes – construction – Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) (“the Act”0 – admissibility of evidence obtained communications obtained through encrypted application “AN0M” installed on mobile devices – where appellants charged with participating in criminal organisation and firearms offences – where prosecution seeks to lead evidence of communications obtained through “AN0M” application – where “AN0M” operated such that when mobile device user pressed ‘send’ on text message separate second message created in AN0M application with copy of message and additional data and sent via XMPP server to an “iBot” server which then re-transmitted to servers accessible by Australian Federal Police – whether AFP’s conduct in obtaining evidence of AN0M communications involved interception of communication passing over telecommunications system contrary to s7(1) of Act and thereby inadmissible – where Court of Appeal found use of AN0M application and platform did not involve interception of communication – where s 5F of Act provides communication taken to start passing over telecommunications system when sent or transmitted by person send communication and taken to continue to pass over system until accessible to intended recipient – whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to find under s 5F(a) of Act that having composed text message and pressing ‘send’ on mobile device connected to telecommunications system start of process for sending message over that system – whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to find covert copying of text message and covert transmission of message upon pressing ‘send’ unlawful interception – whether Court of Appeal erred in construction of term “intended recipient” by finding “iBot” server intended recipient under ss 5F(b) and 5GH of Act.

Appealed from SASCA: [2024] SASCA 82

Return to Top

Palmanova Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia
S47/2024; [2024] HCASL 294

Date determined: 7 November 2024 - Special leave granted

Catchwords:

Statutes – construction – Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”) – where Bolivian artefact purchased by applicant from US gallery in 2020 seized upon entry into Australia under Act – whether artefact exported from Bolivia to US prior to 1960 – where artefact seized upon entry into Australia under s 14 of Act – whether artefact liable for forfeiture – temporal operation of Act - whether majority of Full Federal Court erred in interpretation of s 14(1) of Act by concluding Act not limited in application to protected object of foreign country exported from that country after date of commencement of Act (1 July 1987) – whether majority erred in concluding unnecessary to consider extrinsic material in construction of s 14.

Appealed from FCAFC: [2024] FCAFC 90; (2024) FCR 163

Return to Top

Taxation

Commissioner of Taxation v PepsiCo, Inc
Commissioner of Taxation v Stokely-Van Camp, Inc
Commissioner of Taxation v PepsiCo, Inc
Commissioner of Taxation v PepsiCo, Inc
Commissioner of Taxation v Stokely-Van Camp, Inc
Commissioner of Taxation v Stokely-Van Camp, Inc
M98/2024: [2024] HCASL 298; M99/2024: [2024] HCASL 299; M100/2024: [2024] HCASL 300; M101/2024: [2024] HCASL 301; M102/2024: [2024] HCASL 302; M103/2024: [2024] HCASL 303

Date determined: 7 November 2024 – Special leave granted

Taxation – royalty withholding tax – diverted profits tax – where non-resident taxpayer entered into exclusive bottling agreements (“EBAs”) with Australian company (SAPL) for bottling and sale of PepsiCo branded beverages – where EBAs included licence of taxpayers’ trademarks and other intellectual property but did not provide for royalty – whether Full Federal Court ought to have found payments made under EBAs included “royalty” paid “as consideration for” use of or right to use intellectual property licensed to SAPL within meaning of s 6(1) Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (“ITAA”) – whether Full Court ought to have found royalty component of EBA was income “derived” by and “paid to” PepsiCo under s 128(2B) ITAA and thereby withholding tax payable under s 128B(5A) – whether if no royalty withholding tax payable Full Court ought to have found liability for diverted profits tax for purposes of ss 177J and 177P ITAA.

Appealed from FCAFC: [2024] FCAFC 86; (2024) 303 FCR 1

Return to Top

7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

8: Special Leave Refused

Publication of Reasons: 7 November 2024

No.	Applicant	Respondent	Court appealed from	Result
1.	Shapkin	The University of Sydney ABN 15211513464 & Anor (S99/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) [2024] NSWCA 156	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 272
2.	Cavar	Campbelltown Catholic Club Limited ABN 59000504110 (S103/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) [2024] NSWCA 126	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 273
3.	Cavar	Campbelltown Catholic Club Limited ABN 59000504110 (S104/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) [2024] NSWCA 126	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 274
4.	Dibb & Anor	Transport for NSW (S111/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) [2023] NSWCA 157	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 275
5.	In the matter of an application by Richard Woolley for leave to appeal (C11/2024)		High Court of Australia [2024] HCASJ 32	Leave refused [2024] HCASL 276
6.	Sebie	Krejci & Ors (S100/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) [2023] NSWCA 187	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 277
7.	Tydeman	State of New South Wales & Anor (S112/2024)	High Court of Australia [2024] HCASL 180	Leave refused [2024] HCASL 278
8.	Praljak	Bond University Limited (B43/2024)	Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) [2024] QCA 145	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 279
9.	Praljak	The King (B45/2024)	Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) [2024] QCA 9	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 280
10.	In the matter of an application by Youhua Mao for leave to appeal (S105/2024)		High Court of Australia [2024] HCASJ 31	Leave refused [2024] HCASL 281
11.	Boyle	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor (A16/2024)	Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Appeal) [2024] SASCA 73	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 282
12.	LS	The King (S92/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) [2024] NSWCCA 110	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 285
13.	Lahoud	Willoughby City Council ABN 47974826099 & Anor (S98/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) [2024] NSWCA 163	Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 287
14.	Azzi	State of New South Wales (S101/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) [2024] NSWCA 169	Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 288
15.	KBG	The King (B38/2024)	Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) [2024] QCA 45	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 289
16.	Director of Professional Services Review Under Section 83 Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth)	Raiz & Anor (B40/2024)	Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia [2024] FCAFC 91	Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 290
17.	Patrick	Australian Information Commissioner (M73/2024)	Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia [2024] FCAFC 93	Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 291
18.	Mr Fowles	Ms Fowles (M74/2024)	Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction	Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 292
19.	Chung	The King (S78/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) [2024] NSWCCA 71	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 293
20.	Glass Hardware Australia Pty Ltd ACN 109 911 677	TCT Group Pty Ltd ACN 139 488 467 & Ors (S102/2024)	Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia [2024] FCAFC 95	Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 295
21.	Piety Developments Pty Ltd ACN 166 561 593	Cumberland City Council ABN 22 798 563 329 & Anor (S106/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) [2024] NSWCA 173	Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 296
22.	Coskun	The King (S110/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) [2024] NSWCCA 67	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 305
23.	MA	The King (S115/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) [2024] NSWCCA 69	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 306
24.	AD	The King (S116/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) [2024] NSWCCA 69	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 306
25.	Ren	Strata Corporation 12753 Inc (ABN: 77 343 530 199) (A21/2024)	Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Appeal) [2024] SASCA 106	Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 307

25 November 2024: Canberra and by video link

No.	Applicant	Respondent	Court appealed from	Result
1.	SafeWork NSW	Prime Marble & Granite Pty Ltd (S90/2024 & S91/2024)	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) [2024] NSWCCA 105	Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCATrans 083