Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 26 June 2015 26 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2015] HCAB 5 (26 June 2015)

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: Cases Handed Down
2: Cases Reserved
3: Original Jurisdiction
4: Special Leave Granted
5: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
6: Special Leave Refused

Summary of New Entries

1: Cases Handed Down

Case	Title
Isbester v Knox City Council	Administrative Law
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZAPN; WZARV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection	Migration
King v Philcox	Negligence
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd & Ors	Practice and Procedure
Gnych & Anor v Polish Club Limited	Property

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
McCloy & Ors v State of New South Wales & Anor	Constitutional Law
Smith v The Queen	Juries
D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics & Anor	Patents
Correy Fuller-Lyons by his tutor Nita Lyons v State of New South Wales	Torts

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Limited & Anor v Northern Territory of Australia	Criminal Law
Duncan v Independent Commission Against Corruption	Statutes

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Commonwealth of Australia v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate & Ors	Procedure
Allen v Chadwick	Torts

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the June 2015 sittings.

Administrative Law

Isbester v Knox City Council

M19/2015: [2015] HCA 20.

Judgment Delivered: 10 June 2015.

Coram: Kiefel, Bell, Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ.

Catchwords:

Administrative law
– Natural justice – Bias – Reasonable apprehension of bias – Incompatibility of roles – Where respondent made order under s 84P(e) of Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic) for destruction of appellant's dog – Where there was panel hearing and deliberation prior to decision being made – Where member of panel had been involved in prosecuting related criminal charges – Whether fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend that panel member might not bring impartial mind to decision – Whether interest of panel member might affect decision-making of others on panel.
– "conflict of interest", "incompatibility of roles".

Words and phrases

Appealed from VSC (CA): [2014] VSCA 214.

Held: Appealed allowed.

Return to Top

Migration

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZAPN & Anor; WZARV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

M17/2015; P10/2015: [2015] HCA 22.

Judgment delivered: 17 June 2015.

Coram: French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ.

Catchwords:

Migration – Refugee status – Section 91R(1)(b) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides persecution must involve "serious harm to the person" – Section 91R(2)(a) lists "threat to the person's life or liberty" as instance of serious harm – Where person faces period or periods of temporary detention – Whether that constitutes "threat to liberty" amounting to serious harm, without qualification as to…

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: [2015] HCAB 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Isbester v Knox City Council involved an appeal against the decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to destroy the appellant's dog. The appellant argued that the VCAT panel members had a reasonable apprehension of bias due to one of the members being involved in the prosecution of related criminal charges. The High Court held that the appellant's appeal was allowed and the decision of VCAT was quashed. The case of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZAPN and WZARV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection involved appeals against the decisions of the Federal Court to grant refugee status to the applicants. The High Court held that the appellant's appeal was allowed and the decision of the Federal Court was quashed in M17/2015, while the respondent's appeal was dismissed in P10/2015. The case of King v Philcox involved an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia to dismiss the respondent's claim for damages for mental harm caused by the appellant's negligence. The High Court held that the appellant's appeal was allowed and the decision of the Supreme Court was quashed. The case of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd and Ors involved an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria to order the appellant to make discovery in a contempt proceeding. The High Court held that the appellant's appeal was dismissed. The case of Gnych and Anor v Polish Club Limited involved an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to enforce a lease granted in breach of the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW). The High Court held that the appellant's appeal was allowed and the decision of the Supreme Court was quashed.

Orders