Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 20 February 2015 26 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2015] HCAB 1 (20 February 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
Lavin & Anor v Toppi & Ors	Equity
CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Migration
Plaintiff S297/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Migration
Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Zhao & Anor	Proceeds of Crime
Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd	Property Law

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Australian Communications and Media Authority v Today FM (Sydney) Pty Ltd	Administrative Law
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia & Ors v Queensland Rail & Anor	Constitutional Law
Queensland Nickel Limited v Commonwealth of Australia	Constitutional Law
Duncan v The State of New South Wales; NuCoal Resources Ltd v State of New South Wales; Cascade Coal Pty Ltd & Ors v The State of New South Wales	Constitutional Law
Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v William John Fletcher and Katherine Elizabeth Barnet as Liquidators of Octaviar Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) & Ors; JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association & Anor v William John Fletcher and Katherine Elizabeth Barnet as Liquidators of Octaviar Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) & Ors	Corporations
Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II & Anor v William John Fletcher and Katherine Elizabeth Barnet as Liquidators of Octaviar Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) and Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd & Ors	Corporations
CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales	Criminal Law
Korda & Ors v Australia Executor Trustees (SA) Limited	Equity
State of Queensland v Congoo & Ors	Native Title

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
Quandamooka Yoolooburrabee Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v State of Queensland	Native Title
McCloy & Ors v The State of New South Wales & Anor	Statutes

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Isbester v Knox City Council	Administrative Law
Selig & Selig v Wealthsure Pty Ltd & Ors	Corporations Law
Lindsay v The Queen	Criminal Law
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited	Estoppel
Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru & Anor	Foreign Judgments
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection	Migration
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZAPN & Anor	Migration
D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics & Anor	Patents
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd & Ors	Procedure
Independent Commission Against Corruption v Cunneen & Ors	Statutes
Ausnet Transmission Group Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia	Taxation
King v Philcox	Tort Law

1: Cases Handed Down

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 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lavin and Anor v Toppi and Ors dealt with the issue of contribution between co-sureties in circumstances where one creditor had given a covenant not to sue. The court was asked to determine whether the respondents were entitled to contribution from the appellants. The court held that the respondents were not entitled to contribution because the appellants and respondents did not share coordinate liabilities. CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Anor involved the issue of whether a maritime officer had the power to detain a person for the purpose of taking them to a place outside Australia. The court held that the maritime officer did have the power to detain the plaintiff and that this power was not subject to an obligation to afford procedural fairness. Plaintiff S297/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Anor involved the issue of whether a clause in the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) was invalid. The court held that the clause was valid. Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Zhao and Anor dealt with the issue of whether forfeiture proceedings should be stayed until criminal proceedings are finalised. The court held that the refusal to stay forfeiture proceedings did not create a risk of prejudice in the criminal proceedings. Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain and Co Pty Ltd involved the issue of whether the appellant's title to property was defeasible because of fraud committed by her husband. The court held that the appellant's title was not defeasible.

Orders