Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 30 June 2014 25 min read

Contents

On this page

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

[2014] HCAB 05 (30 June 2014)
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

Williams v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors

Constitutional Law

Plaintiff S156/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor

Constitutional Law

FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor

Migration

Plaintiff S297/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor

Migration

Plaintiff M150/2013 by his litigation guardian Sister Brigid Marie Arthur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor

Migration

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

Migration

Howard v Commissioner of Taxation

Taxation

2: Cases Reserved

Case

Title

Tajjour; Hawthorne; Forster v State of New South Wales

Constitutional Law

Pollentine & Anor v Bleijie & Ors

Constitutional Law

Honeysett v The Queen

Evidence

Fitzgerald v The Queen

Evidence

Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 & Anor

Tort Law

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case

Title

Kuczborski v The State of Queensland

Constitutional Law

4: Special Leave Granted

Case

Title

Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd

Property Law

Hunter and New England Local Health District v McKenna; Hunter and New England Local Health District v Simon & Anor

Tort Law

1: Cases Handed Down
The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the June 2014 sittings.
Administrative Law
See also Constitutional Law: Plaintiff S156/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
See also Migration: FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor and
Return to Top
Constitutional Law
Williams v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors
S154/2013: [2014] HCA 23.
Judgment delivered: 19 June 2014.
Coram: French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ.
Catchwords:
Constitutional law (Cth) – Powers of Commonwealth Parliament – Commonwealth entered into funding agreement with private service provider for provision of chaplaincy services at state school – Funding agreement made under National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program – Commonwealth paid money under funding agreement – Section 32B of Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) empowered Commonwealth to make, vary or administer arrangements, for purposes of specified programs, under which public money payable by Commonwealth – National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program specified program for purposes of s 32B – Whether s 32B in its relevant operation supported by s 51(xx), (xxiiiA) or (xxxix) of Constitution.
Constitutional law (Cth) – Executive power of Commonwealth – Executive power to spend and contract – Whether entry into and expenditure under funding agreement supported by executive power of Commonwealth.
Constitutional law (Cth) – Reopening of previous…

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: [2014] HCAB 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in Williams v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors were the Commonwealth of Australia and the respondent, Williams. The dispute centered around the constitutional validity of the Commonwealth's funding agreement with a private service provider for the provision of chaplaincy services at state schools. The High Court was required to determine whether the funding agreement was supported by the relevant sections of the Constitution and whether the executive power of the Commonwealth was engaged. The Court found that the funding agreement was supported by the Constitution and that the executive power of the Commonwealth was engaged. The case involved the constitutional law of Australia, specifically the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament and the executive power of the Commonwealth. The Court answered the questions posed and upheld the validity of the funding agreement.

In Plaintiff S156/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor, the parties were the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the plaintiff, who was an unauthorised maritime arrival in Australia. The dispute centered around the validity of certain sections of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the exercise of power by the Minister. The High Court was required to determine whether the sections in question were laws with respect to aliens and whether the Minister was obliged to consider relevant considerations when exercising the power to designate a country as a regional processing country. The Court found that the sections were valid and that the Minister was not obliged to consider other relevant considerations. The case involved constitutional law and administrative law, specifically the legislative and executive powers of the Commonwealth and the judicial review of administrative decisions. The Court answered the questions posed and upheld the validity of the sections and the exercise of power by the Minister.

Orders