High Court Bulletin
[2024] HCAB 6
High Court Bulletin
[2024] HCAB 6 (6 September 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 |
| CBI Constructions Pty Ltd v Chevron Australia | Arbitration |
| Tesseract International Pty Ltd v Pascale Construction Pty Ltd | Arbitration |
| Cook (a pseudonym) v The King | Criminal Law |
| BQ v The King | Evidence |
| Steven Moore (a pseudonym) v The King | Evidence |
| Mallonland Pty Ltd v Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd | Negligence |
| Productivity Partners Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; Wills v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission | Trade Practices |
3: Cases Reserved
| Case | Title |
| Commonwealth of Australia v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors; His Honour Judge Salvatore Paul Vasta v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors | Constitutional Law |
| Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu (on behalf of the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group) & Ors | Constitutional Law |
| YBFZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor | Constitutional Law |
| Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Ors | Immigration |
| State of Queensland v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors | Torts |
4: Original Jurisdiction
| Case | Title |
| MJZP v DG Security | Constitutional Law |
5: Section 40 Removal
| Case | Title |
| Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v G Global 120E T2 Pty Ltd as trustee for the G Global 120E AUT & Anor Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v G Global 180Q Pty Ltd as trustee for the G Global 180Q AUT & Anor Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v G Global 180Q Pty Ltd as trustee for the G Global 180Q AUT & Anor | Constitutional Law |
| CZA19 v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor | Constitutional Law |
| DBD24 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship & Multicultural Affairs & Anor | Constitutional Law |
6: Special Leave Granted
| 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 |
| 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 | Competition Law |
| FEL17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs | Immigration |
7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
| Garland v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor | Immigration |
8: Special Leave Refused
2: Cases Handed Down
The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the August 2024 sittings.
Arbitration
CBI Constructions Pty Ltd v Chevron Australia
[2024] HCA 28
Judgment delivered: 14 August 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Arbitration – Award – Application to set aside arbitral award – Where arbitration proceedings arose from dispute concerning contract to provide staff – Where tribunal issued first interim award on issues of liability – Where appellants repleaded their case on quantum ("Contract Criteria Case") – Where respondent objected to Contract Criteria Case on basis of res judicata, issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel and that tribunal was functus officio – Where tribunal rejected respondent's objections and issued second interim award – Where respondent applied to set aside second interim award under s 34(2)(a)(iii) of Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA) – Where primary judge set aside second interim award and held tribunal was functus officio – Where Court of Appeal of Supreme Court of Western Australia dismissed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Supreme Court had power to set aside second interim award under s 34(2)(a)(iii) of Commercial Arbitration Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding standard of review to be applied by Supreme Court is de novo review.
Words and phrases – "beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration", "correctness standard", "de novo review", "estoppel", "final and binding", "functus officio", "jurisdiction", "principle of competence-competence", "res judicata", "want of authority".
Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA), ss 16, 34.
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2010), Art 34.
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), Arts 16, 34.
Appealed from WASC (CA): [2023] WASCA 1
Held: Appeal dismissed with costs
Return to Top
Tesseract International Pty Ltd v Pascale Construction Pty Ltd
[2024] HCA 24
Judgment delivered: 7 August 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordeon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Arbitration – Proportionate liability – Where contract for engineering consultancy provided for referral of disputes to arbitration – Where dispute as to performance of contract referred to arbitration – Where arbitration conducted pursuant to Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (SA) – Where law applicable to substance of dispute is the law of South Australia – Where respondent claims damages for breach of contract, negligence and misleading or deceptive conduct – Where appellant denies liability – Where in alternative appellant contends liability reduced by reference to alleged concurrent wrongdoing of third party in accordance with proportionate liability laws in Pt 3 of Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 (SA) ("Law Reform Act") and Pt VIA of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) ("CCA") – Where third party not and cannot be required to be party to arbitration – Where respondent denies applicability of proportionate liability laws in arbitration – Where appellant applied to Supreme Court of South Australia for leave to obtain determination of question of law as to applicability of proportionate liability laws in arbitration – Whether proportionate liability laws in Pt 3 of Law Reform Act and Pt VIA of CCA apply in arbitration.
Words and phrases – "apportionable claim", "arbitrability", "capable of settlement by arbitration", "capable of translation or adaptation", "choice of law", "concurrent wrongdoer", "express or implied choice of law", "joinder", "non‑arbitrable subject matter", "paramount object of arbitration", "party autonomy", "proportionate liability", "public policy", "rules of law applicable to the substance of the dispute", "solidary liability".
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Pt VIA.
Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (SA), ss 1C, 5, 16, 19, 27J, 28, 34.
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 (SA), Pt 3.
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), Arts 5, 16, 19, 28, 34.
Appealed from SASC (CA): [2022] SASCA 107; (2022) 140 SASR 395; (2022) 406 ALR 293
Held: Appeal allowed with costs.
Return to Top
Criminal Law
Cook (a pseudonym) v The King
[2024] HCA 26
Judgment delivered: 7 August 2024
Coram: Gordon ACJ, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Appeal against conviction – Admissibility of evidence – Where appellant convicted of sexual offences against child complainant – Where complainant previously sexually assaulted by another person – Where complainant allegedly disclosed previous sexual assaults in detail to appellant – Where appellant sought to call evidence and cross-examine complainant regarding previous sexual assaults – Where s 293(3) of Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) prohibits admission of evidence of complainant's sexual experience or sexual activity – Whether evidence admissible under exception to s 293(3) contained in s 293(4)(a) or (b) – Whether evidence formed part of connected set of circumstances in which alleged offending by appellant occurred – Whether evidence related to relationship between appellant and complainant – Whether jury misled by description of previous sexual assaults as "physical assaults" – Whether acquittal of appellant required to avoid new trial that would be unfair to appellant because such evidence inadmissible.
Words and phrases – "characterisation of sexual experience", "connected set of circumstances in which the alleged sexual assault occurred", "evidence of sexual activity", "evidence of sexual experience", "forensic disadvantage", "miscarriage of justice", "permanent stay", "power to decide whether to acquit", "probative value", "relates to a relationship", "relationship between the accused person and the complainant", "relationship of trust and confidence", "sexual activity", "sexual experience", "unfair trial".
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 6, 8.
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 293(3), 293(4)(a), 293(4)(b), 294CB.
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 56.
Appealed from NSW (CCA): [2022] NSWCCA 282
Held: Appeal allowed in part
Return to Top
Evidence
BQ v The King
[2024] HCA 29
Judgment delivered: 14 August 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Evidence – Criminal trial – Expert evidence – Opinion evidence – Credibility evidence – Admissibility – Where s 79(1) of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) provides exception to opinion rule for evidence of opinion that is based wholly or substantially on specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience – Where s 108C of Evidence Act provides similar exception in case of credibility rule – Where appellant convicted of multiple child sexual offences against two nieces – Where respondent adduced evidence from expert witness concerning possible responses of victims of child sexual assault – Where expert gave opinion about circumstances of and responses to child sexual assault in "intra-familial" context – Where expert gave evidence that intra-familial child sexual assault often takes place within family home with other family members proximate – Whether expert evidence went beyond accepted area of expertise and was therefore inadmissible – Whether miscarriage of justice arose from failure to give general and particular directions to jury to limit use of expert evidence.
Words and phrases – "area of expertise", "behaviour of perpetrators", "child sexual assault", "credibility", "credibility rule", "direction", "evidence", "expert evidence", "expert witness", "illegitimate use", "intra-familial context", "opinion rule", "responses of victims of child sexual assault", "specialised knowledge", "wholly or substantially based".
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 79, 108C.
Appealed from NSW (CCA): [2023] NSWCCA 34
Held: Appeal dismissed.
Return to Top
Evidence
Steven Moore (a pseudonym) v The King
[2024] HCA 30
Judgment delivered: 14 August 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Evidence – Interlocutory appeal – Admissibility – Hearsay evidence – Judicial discretion to exclude evidence – Standard of appellate review – Where s 65 of Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) applied in criminal proceeding if person who made previous representation was not available to give evidence about asserted fact – Where appellant due to stand trial for seven offences committed against one complainant – Where complainant passed away in unrelated circumstances – Where respondent notified appellant of intention to adduce evidence of previous representations made by complainant – Where trial judge ruled evidence satisfied s 65 and refused to exclude evidence of representations under s 137 of Evidence Act – Whether Court of Appeal required to apply principles in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 or "correctness" standard in reviewing trial judge's decision under s 137 of Evidence Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in assessing danger of unfair prejudice that would result from admission of evidence of representations.
Words and phrases – "appellate court", "correctness standard", "discretionary decision", "evidence", "hearsay", "hearsay rule", "interlocutory", "not available", "probative value", "representation", "standard of review", "unfair prejudice".
Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 295, 296, 297, 300.
Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 59, 65, 67, 137.
Appealed from VSC (CA): [2023] VSCA 236
Held: Appeal dismissed.
Return to Top
Negligence
Mallonland Pty Ltd v Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd
[2024] HCA 25
Judgment delivered: 7 August 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Negligence – Duty of care – Where the appellants ("the growers") purchased contaminated grain sorghum seed from a distributor authorised by the respondent ("the producer") – Where the growers consequently suffered pure economic loss in the form of reduced income and increased expenditure – Whether the producer owed the growers a duty to take reasonable care in its production process of the seed to avoid the risk that the growers would sustain pure economic loss by reason of a hidden defect in the seed – Whether the producer had assumed a responsibility towards the growers to take reasonable care to avoid causing them pure economic loss – Whether the salient features of the relationship between the producer and the growers established a duty of care to avoid causing pure economic loss.
Words and phrases – "assumption of responsibility", "control", "disclaimer of responsibility", "duty of care", "indeterminacy", "intention", "knowledge", "proximity", "pure economic loss", "reasonable foreseeability", "salient features", "vulnerability".
Appealed from QLDSC (CA): [2023] QCA 24; (2023) 13 QR 492
Held: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Return to Top
Trade Practices
Productivity Partners Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; Wills v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
[2024] HCA 27
Judgment delivered: 14 August 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Trade practices – Consumer protection – Unconscionable conduct – Where s 21 of Australian Consumer Law ("ACL") relevantly provided that persons must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with supply of services, "engage in conduct that is, in all the circumstances, unconscionable" – Where s 224(1) of ACL relevantly provided that Court may order person to pay pecuniary penalty when that person "knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contravention" of provisions including s 21 – Where Productivity Partners Pty Ltd ("College") offered vocational education and training ("VET") courses funded through Commonwealth loan program – Where College altered enrolment process to remove safeguards ameliorating known risks of unwitting or unsuitable persons becoming and remaining enrolled at date on which VET fees became claimable by College from Commonwealth – Where Mr Wills was Chief Operating Officer of parent company of College and, for part of relevant period, acting Chief Executive Officer of College – Whether College engaged in unconscionable conduct in contravention of s 21 of ACL – Whether Mr Wills knowingly concerned in or party to that contravention.
Words and phrases – "accessorial liability", "community expectations", "community standards", "conscience", "corporate systems liability", "ecclesiastical", "essential elements", "essential facts", "essential matters", "intentionally participated", "involved", "knowingly concerned", "moral obloquy", "normative standard", "offensive to conscience", "sharp practice", "societal norms of acceptable commercial behaviour", "unconscionable conduct", "values of Australian common law".
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), s 139B, Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law), ss 21, 22, 224(1).
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 54; (2023) 297 FCR 180
Held: Appeals dismissed with costs.
Return to Top
3: Cases Reserved
The following cases have been reserved or part heard by the High Court of Australia.
Bankruptcy
Morgan & Ors v McMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor
S119/2023: [2024] HCATrans 43
Date heard: 12 June 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Bankruptcy – Pooling order – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 579E – Meaning of "particular property" – Where first appellant is liquidator of second and third appellants – Where first appellant sought order before primary judge that, inter alia, Australian Securities and Investments Commission ("ASIC") reinstate registration of third appellant, and Court make pooling order pursuant to s 579E of Corporations Act in respect of second and third appellant – Where primary judge made orders that ASIC reinstate registration of third appellant, and that second and third appellants be pooled group for purpose of s 579E of Corporations Act – Where first respondent appealed to Full Court on question of whether pooling order should be set aside – Where Full Court found precondition in s 570E(1)(b)(iv) of Corporations Act not satisfied – Whether Full Court majority erred in finding precondition in s 579E(1)(b)(iv) of Corporations Act not satisfied in circumstances where second and third appellants jointly and severally owned "particular property", being chose in action, at time of making pooling order, being immediately following reinstatement of third appellant – Whether Full Court majority impermissibly departed from clear and unambiguous language of s 601AH(5) of Corporations Act.
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 9; (2023) 295 FCR 543; (2023) 407 ALR 328; (2023) 164 ACSR 129
Return to Top
Civil Procedure
RC v The Salvation Army (Western Australia) Property Trust
P7/2023: [2024] HCATrans 32; [2024] HCATrans 33
Date heard: 7 and 8 May 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Civil procedure – Permanent stay of proceedings – Prejudice – Where appellant claimed damages with respect to loss and damage suffered as result of sexual abuse by Salvation Army Officer between August 1959 and April 1960, when appellant aged 12 and 13 years old, while in care of respondent – Where Salvation Army Officer died in 2006, eight years before respondent first became aware appellant alleged sexual abuse – Where another key witness died in 1968 – Where respondent applied for permanent stay of proceedings – Where primary judge granted permanent stay – Where appellant unsuccessfully appealed to Court of Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding open to primary judge to grant permanent stay of appellant's action against respondent – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding finding of prejudice.
Appealed from WASC (CA): [2023] WASCA 29
Return to Top
Willmot v The State of Queensland
B65/2023: [2024] HCATrans 31
Date heard: 7 May 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Civil procedure – Stay of proceedings – Where appellant claimed damages as result of physical and sexual abuse which she claimed she suffered whilst State Child pursuant to State Children Act 1911 (Qld) and under control of respondent by virtue of Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) – Where alleged perpetrators either deceased or in case of NW, 78 year old man who was 16 at time of alleged conduct – Where trial judge held case in exceptional category where permanent stay warranted – Where Court of Appeal upheld trial judge’s decision – Whether Court of Appeal erred in determining trial judge did not err in exercise of discretion to grant permanent stay of appellant's proceeding.
Appealed from QLDSC (CA): [2023] QCA 102
Return to Top
Constitutional Law
Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania v Casimaty & Anor
H3/2023: [2024] HCATrans 20
Date heard: 9 April 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Constitutional law – Legislature – Privileges – Privilege of parliamentary debate and proceedings – Admissibility of report of parliamentary committee – Where proceedings concern road works at intersection – Where first respondent claims to hold interest in land at intersection – Where proposal by Department of State Growth to upgrade intersection considered and reported upon by Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works ("Committee") in 2017 – Where second respondent engaged to construct new interchange – Where first respondent claims that works that second respondent was to perform not same as public works considered and reported upon by Committee – Where Attorney-General joined as second defendant and applied to, inter alia, strike out parts of statement of claim as offending parliamentary privilege – Where primary judge found cause of action could not proceed without court adjudicating upon 2017 report of Committee, which would contravene Article 9 of Bill of Rights – Where Full Court dismissed Attorney-General’s interlocutory application – Whether Full Court erred in construing s 15 and s 16 of Public Works Committee Act 1914 (Tas) ("PWC Act") as creating public obligation which falls outside parliamentary process and hence ambit of parliamentary privilege – Whether it would infringe parliamentary privilege for court to determine whether road works complied with s 16(1) of PWC Act by adjudicating upon whether road works that second respondent were engaged to undertake were different from road works reported on by Committee.
Appealed from TASSC (FC): [2023] TASFC 2
Return to Top
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 & 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.
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 – 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
YBFZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor
S27/2024: [2024] HCA Trans 47
Date heard: 6 August 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Monitoring and curfew powers – Where plaintiff sentenced to aggregate term of imprisonment of 18 months and his permanent refugee visa cancelled – Where after release from prison, plaintiff detained under s 189 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where plaintiff released from detention and granted various visas, each with curfew condition and electronic monitoring condition imposed – Whether curfew and monitoring powers under cl 070.612A(1) of Sch 2 of Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), together or alone, "punitive" and therefore contrary to Ch III of Constitution
Application for constitutional or other writ referred to the Full Court on 22 May 2024.
Courts
HBSY Pty Ltd ACN 151 894 049 v Lewis & Anor
S106/2023: [2024] HCATrans 34
Date heard: 9 May 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Courts – Jurisdiction – Cross-vesting – Appeals – State court invested with federal jurisdiction – Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) ss 7(3), 7(5) – Where dispute arose in respect of first defendant’s late aunt’s estate – Where first defendant’s brother director of Lewis Securities Ltd – Where estate’s largest asset money owing to it by Sir Moses Montefiore Jewish Home ("Montefiore sum") – Where brother deposited Montefiore Sum with Lewis Securities – Where Lewis Securities entered liquidation and Montefiore sum lost – Where brother liable to estate and declared bankrupt – Where plaintiff purchased various assets from trustee in bankruptcy including interest in residue of estate – Where brother discharged from bankruptcy – Where plaintiff sought orders in Supreme Court revoking letters of administration granted to first defendant, or alternatively order that he be replaced as trustee – Where first defendant cross-claimed seeking declarations that plaintiff not entitled to be paid brother’s share of estate – Where plaintiff unsuccessful at first-instance – Where on 27 July 2022, plaintiff filed and served notice of intention to appeal to New South Wales Court of Appeal – Where on 31 August 2022, plaintiff’s legal advisers came to view appeal would concern matter arising under Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth) and would therefore have to be brought in Full Federal Court – Where plaintiff sought extension of time to appeal from judgment of Supreme Court of New South Wales to Full Court of Federal Court of Australia – Where Full Court held s 7(5) of Cross-Vesting Act did not apply and suggested plaintiff may wish to revive process it had commenced in Court of Appeal – Where plaintiff seeks writ of mandamus requiring Full Court to determine substantive appeal – Whether Full Court has jurisdiction to hear appeal – Proper construction of s 7(5) of Cross-Vesting Act.
Application for constitutional or other writ referred to the Full Court on 22 November 2023.
Return to Top
Criminal Practice
Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith
M16/2024: [2024] HCATrans 27
Date heard: 18 April 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Edelman, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Criminal practice – Open justice – Where respondent faces trial in County Court of Victoria on indictment charging them with four child sexual offences – Where child complainant gave evidence at special hearing conducted pursuant to s 370 of Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) ("CPA") – Where day prior to special hearing, presiding judge met with complainant in presence of both prosecutor and defence counsel at offices of Child Witness Service – Where respondent's counsel did not object to introductory meeting and judge made directions for fair and efficient conduct of proceeding pursuant to s 389E of CPA, having regard to recommendations made by intermediary – Where introductory meeting not recorded and accused not present – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding introductory meeting between child complainant, presiding judge, prosecutor and defence counsel prior to special hearing at which complainant gave evidence, not authorised by s 389E of CPA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding introductory meeting inconsistent with principle of open justice – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding introductory meeting fundamental irregularity in respondent’s trial that could not be waived.
Appealed from VSC (CA): [2023] VSCA 293
Return to Top
Immigration
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Ors v MZAPC
P21/2024: [2024] HCA Trans 51
Date heard: 13 August 2024 adjourned to a date to be fixed
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
Return to Top
Taxation
Automotive Invest Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation
S170/2023: [2024] HCATrans 44
Date heard: 13 June 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ
Catchwords:
Taxation – Luxury car tax – Goods and services tax – A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) ("LCT Act") – Where appellant operated business called "Gosford Classic Car Museum" – Where museum displayed motor vehicles – Where displayed motor vehicles also generally available for sale and were trading stock – Where LCT Act is single stage tax imposed on supply or importation of "luxury cars" where value exceeds "luxury car tax threshold" – Proper test for non-application of LCT Act – Whether LCT Act to be read and construed by reference to underlying legislative policy – Whether whole of s 9-5(1) determinative of whether appellant subject to increasing adjustment under charging provisions in ss 15-30(3)(c) and 15-35(3)(c) – Whether Full Court majority erred in concluding because LCT Act does not define "retail" sale no basis for importing into s 9-5(1)(a) "the idea of taking only a ‘retail sale’".
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 129; (2023) 299 FCR 288; (2023) 117 ATR 151
Torts
Bird v DP (a pseudonym)
M82/2023: [2024] HCATrans 16
Date heard: 14 March 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Torts – Personal Injury – Sexual assault – Vicarious liability – Where trial concerned allegations of sexual assaults against respondent by Catholic Priest in 1971, when respondent was five years of age – Where respondent sued Diocese of Ballarat through current Bishop, who was nominated defendant – Where respondent’s negligence case failed, but appellant, representing Diocese, found to be vicariously liable for Priest’s sexual assaults – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that appellant could be vicariously liable for tortfeasor’s wrong where express finding that tortfeasor not in employment relationship with appellant and was no finding that tortious conduct occurred as part of any agency relationship between tortfeasor and appellant – Where in circumstances Court finds relationship between appellant and tortfeasor gives rise to relationship of vicarious liability, whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding, based on general and non-specific evidence accepted, that conduct of tortfeasor was conduct for which appellant ought be liable as having provided both opportunity and occasion for its occurrence.
Appealed from VSC (CA): [2023] VSCA 66; (2023) 69 VR 408; (2023) 323 IR 174
Return to Top
Bird v DP (a pseudonym)
M82/2023: [2024] HCATrans 16
Date heard: 14 March 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Torts – Personal Injury – Sexual assault – Vicarious liability – Where trial concerned allegations of sexual assaults against respondent by Catholic Priest in 1971, when respondent was five years of age – Where respondent sued Diocese of Ballarat through current Bishop, who was nominated defendant – Where respondent’s negligence case failed, but appellant, representing Diocese, found to be vicariously liable for Priest’s sexual assaults – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that appellant could be vicariously liable for tortfeasor’s wrong where express finding that tortfeasor not in employment relationship with appellant and was no finding that tortious conduct occurred as part of any agency relationship between tortfeasor and appellant – Where in circumstances Court finds relationship between appellant and tortfeasor gives rise to relationship of vicarious liability, whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding, based on general and non-specific evidence accepted, that conduct of tortfeasor was conduct for which appellant ought be liable as having provided both opportunity and occasion for its occurrence.
Appealed from VSC (CA): [2023] VSCA 66; (2023) 69 VR 408; (2023) 323 IR 174
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 & 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 Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.
Return to Top
Trade Practices
Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd ACN 004 116 223
S25/2024: [2024] HCATrans 23; [2024] HCATrans 24
Date heard: 11 and 12 April 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Trade Practices – Consumer law – Measure of damages for failure to comply with guarantee of acceptable quality – Where appellant brought representative proceedings under Part IVA of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) in respect of Ford-badged motor vehicles fitted with DPS6 dual-clutch transmission system ("affected vehicles") – Where primary judge found affected vehicles supplied in breach of guarantee of acceptable quality under s 25 of Australian Consumer Law – Where primary judge held damages under s 272(1) requires assessment of reduction in value only at time of supply – Where Full Court found in order to avoid overcompensation under s 272(1)(a), it may be necessary to depart from date of supply as reference state for statutory reduction in value damages – Where Full Court held post-supply information may be relevant – Whether Full Court erred in construing s 272(1)(a) as subject to qualification that assessment of damages may require departure from assessment at time of supply or adjustment to avoid over-compensation – Whether s 272(1)(a) permits, and for what purpose, evidence of post-supply events to be used when assessing statutory compensation under the provision.
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] HCATrans 21; [2024] HCATrans 22
Date heard: 10 and 11 April 2024
Coram: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords:
Trade Practices – Consumer law – Measure of damages for failure to comply with guarantee of acceptable quality – Where representative proceedings concerned 264,170 Toyota motor vehicles with diesel engines sold to Australian consumers – Where vehicles supplied with defective diesel particulate filter system – Where appellant introduced effective solution known as "2020 field fix" – Where 2020 field fix effective in remedying defect and its consequences in all relevant vehicles – Where primary judge found on "common sense approach" breach of s 54 Australian Consumer Law ("ACL") resulted in reduction in value of all vehicles by 17.5% – Where primary judge ordered reduction in damages under s 272(1)(a) of ACL be awarded to all group members who had not opted out, had not received 2020 field fix and first consumer had not sold it during relevant period – Where Full Court set aside order awarding reduction in value damages and reassessed reduction in value to be 10% before taking into account availability of 2020 field fix – Whether Full Court erred in finding damages for reduction in value recoverable when no ongoing reduction in value due to availability of free repair - Whether Full Court erred in failing to find damages for breach of guarantee of acceptable quality always to be assessed by reference to true value of goods at time of supply - Whether assessment of damages imports discretion exercisable under standard of appropriateness to assess reduction in value of goods at some later time or make adjustment downwards to reflect future event unknown at date of supply.
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 50; (2023) 296 FCR 514; (2023) 408 ALR 582
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
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
Pearson v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors
S126/2023: [2023] HCATrans 178
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.
Application for constitutional or other writ referred to the Full Court on 7 March 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
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v G Global 120E T2 Pty Ltd as trustee for the G Global 120E AUT & Anor
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v G Global 180Q Pty Ltd as trustee for the G Global 180Q AUT & Anor
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v G Global 180Q Pty Ltd as trustee for the G Global 180Q AUT & Anor
B34/2024
B35/2024
B36/2024
Removed into the High Court under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) on 26 August 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 from Supreme Court of Queensland.
CZA19 v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor
M66/2024: [2024] HCA Trans 46
Removed into the High Court under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) on 31 July 2024.
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 from Federal Court of Australia.
Return to Top
DBD24 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship & Multicultural Affairs & Anor
P29/2024: [2024] HCA Trans 46
Removed into the High Court under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) on 31 July 2024
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 refused safe haven enterprise visa and placed in immigration detention in June 2023 – where in December 2023 AAT set aside delegate’s decision and remitted visa application with direction that first respondent satisfied s 36(2)(aa) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where visa decision not yet made and first respondent remains in immigration detention - where following decision in NZYQ first respondent sought habeas corpus and mandamus in Federal Court seeking consideration of visa – lawfulness of ongoing detention of first respondent.
Removed from Federal Court of Australia.
Practice and Procedure
Bogan & Anor v The Estate of Peter John Smedley (Deceased) & Ors
M21/2024: [2024] HCASL 55
Removed into the High Court under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) on 7 March 2024.
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 from Victorian Court of Appeal.
Return to Top
6: Special Leave Granted
The following cases have been granted special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
Administrative Law
Fuller & Anor v Lawrence
B24/2024: [2024] HCASL 91
Date determined: 11 April 2024 – Special leave granted
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] HCASL 191
Date determined: 8 August 2024 – Special leave granted on conditions
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
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
Costs
Birketu Pty Ltd ACN 003 831 392 & Anor v Atanaskovic & Ors
S52/2024: [2024] HCASL 117
Date determined: 11 April 2024 – Special leave granted
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
Constitutional Law
JZQQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor
B15/2024: [2024] HCASL 42
Date determined: 7 March 2024 – Special leave granted
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
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
Tapiki v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
P10/2024: [2024] HCASL 43
Date determined: 7 March 2024 – Special leave granted
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
Criminal Law
The King v ZT
S38/2024: [2024] HCASL 49
Date determined: 7 March 2024 – Special leave granted
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: [2023] HCATrans 184
Date heard: 18 December 2023 – Special leave granted
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] HCASL 60
Date determined: 7 March 2024 – Special leave granted
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] HCASL 120
Date determined: 11 April 2024 – Special leave granted
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] HCASL 21; [2024] HCASL 147
Date determined: 8 February and 9 May 2024 – Special leave granted
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
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
BIF23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
M44/2024: [2024] HCASL 145
Date determined: 9 May 2024 – Special leave granted
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
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 n finding application invalid and barred by s 48A.
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 153
Return to Top
Native Title
Stuart & Ors v State of South Australia & Ors
A1/2024: [2024] HCASL 10
Date determined: 8 February 2024 – Special leave granted
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
Statutes
SkyCity Adelaide Pty Ltd v Treasurer of South Australia & Anor
A10/2024: [2024] HCASL 168
Date determined: 6 June 2024 – Special leave granted
Catchwords:
Statutes – Interpretation – Principles – Taking into account ordinary meaning of defined term in construing definition – Where appellant and respondent entered casino duty agreement ("CDA)" under s 17 of Casino Act 1997 (SA) whereby appellant liable to pay duty on net gambling revenue according to schedule to CDA – Where dispute arose regarding correct interpretation of CDA and duty payable in accordance with it – Where master ordered questions of law be reserved for determination by Court of Appeal – Where question one of case stated whether "Converted Credits", being electronic gaming credits arising from conversion of loyalty points by appellant's customers, when played by customers, constitutes "amount received by the Licensee during the period for or in respect of consideration for gambling in the Casino premises" within meaning of "gross gambling revenue" within definition in clause 1.1 of operative terms of CDA – Where Court of Appeal answered "Yes" to question one – Whether Court of Appeal erred in answering "Yes" to question one of case stated, on basis concepts of "gross gambling revenue" and "net gambling revenue" in CDA included value of credits wagered on electronic gambling which had their source in loyalty points given to customers by appellant – Whether ordinary meaning of expression being defined, or part of expression, provides part of context that is properly capable of informing interpretation of words used in definition.
Taxation – Miscellaneous taxation – Casino duty – Casino duty agreement.
Appealed from SASC (CA): [2024] SASCA 14
Return to Top
Tort
Pafburn Pty Limited (ACN 003 485 505) & Anor v The Owners - Strata Plan No 84674
S54/2024: [2024] HCASL 96
Date determined: 11 April 2024 – Special leave granted
Catchwords:
Tort – 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
7: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
Garland v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship & Multicultural Affairs & Anor
P20/2023
Date determined: 6 September 2024 – Appeal allowed with costs by consent
Catchwords:
Immigration – visa cancellation – materiality – whether Full Federal Court erred in holding error by AAT in misconstruing meaning of “vulnerable member of the community” in Direction 90 made under s 499 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) not material to decision to refuse revocation of visa cancellation – whether Full Court erred in approach to materiality in light of LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12.
Appealed from FCA (FC): [2023] FCAFC 144; (2023) 298 FCR 476
Return to Top
8: Special Leave Refused
Publication of Reasons: 8 August 2024
| No. | Applicant | Respondent | Court appealed from | Result |
| 1. | Richani | Martins Plaza Shopping Centre Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of South Australia | Special leave refused |
| 2. | In the matter of an application by Ms Monfort for special leave to appeal (B22/2024) | Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 171 | |
| 3. | Tratter | Aware Super & Ors (M33/2024) | Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia [2023] FCAFC 36 | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 172 |
| 4. | Rahimi | The State of Western Australia (P14/2024) | Supreme Court of | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 173 |
| 5. | Rahimi | The State of Western Australia (P15/2024) | Supreme Court of | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 173 |
| 6. | Chen | State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (B26/2024) | Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) [2024] QCA 42 | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 174 |
| 7. | Harkness | Roberts (M34/2024) | Supreme Court of Victoria | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 175 |
| 8. | Hume | Carey & Ors (P16/2024) | Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) [2023] WASCA 138 | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 176 |
| 9. | Ammoun | The State of Western Australia (P17/2024) | Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) [2009] WASCA 182 | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 177 |
| 10. | Wilson & Anor | State of Victoria & Anor (M29/2024) | Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia [2023] FCAFC 204 | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 178 |
| 11. | Mr Giannis | Ms Giannis (M38/2024) | Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 179 |
| 12. | Tydeman | State of New South Wales & Anor (S49/2024) | Application for removal | Application refused [2024] HCASL 180 |
| 13. | Patrick Malone and Ors on behalf of the Clermont-Belyando Native Title Claim Group | State Minister for the State of Queensland & Ors (B19/2024) | Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia [2023] FCAFC 190 | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 181 |
| 14. | Donchiod Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (ACN 601 212 300) | Merrion B Pty Ltd (ACN 624 885 598) (M35/2024) | Supreme Court of Victoria | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 183 |
| 15. | Filby | TEG Live Pty Limited ACN 150 055 100 (S41/2024) | Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) [2023] NSWCA 320 | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 184 |
| 16. | DTJ22 | Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor (S45/2024) | Federal Court of Australia [2024] FCA 263 | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 185 |
| 17. | McCabe | Riechelmann (S46/2024) | Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) [2024] NSWCA 37 | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 186 |
| 18. | Ridge Estate Pty Ltd (ACN 165 731 706) & Ors | Fairfield Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 603 973 584) & Anor (A4/2024) | Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia [2024] FCAFC 17 | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 187 |
| 19. | Zevenbergen | The King (B23/2024) | Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) [2023] QCA 177 | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 188 |
| 20. | Deng | The Australian Capital Territory & Ors (C6/2024) | Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Court of Appeal) [2024] ACTCA 10 | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 189 |
| 21. | CEU22 | Minister for Home Affairs (S34/2024) | Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia [2024] FCAFC 11 | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 190 |
| 22. | Slea Pty Ltd (ACN 106 752 434) | Millsave Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 115 160 097) & Ors (M30/2024) | Supreme Court of Victoria | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 192 |
| 23. | Connective Services Pty Ltd (ACN 107 366 496) & Anor | Lees & Ors (M31/2024) | Supreme Court of Victoria | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 193 |
| 24. | Wright | David John Neale Lemon as executor of the estate of Michael John Maynard Wright & Ors (P12/2024) | Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) [2024] WASCA 19 | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 194 |
| 25. | Davie | Manuel (P13/2024) | Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) [2024] WASCA 21 | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 195 |
| 26. | John Holland Pty Ltd | Wallis & Ors (P18/2024) | Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) [2024] WASCA 26 | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 196 |
| 27. | Mr Acheson | Ms Begbie & Anor (S48/2024) | Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 198 |
| 28. | Wilson | SAS Trustee Corporation (S50/2024) | Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) [2024] NSWCA 53 | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 199 |
| 29. | Ms Beale | Mr Harvie & Anor (M32/2024) | Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 200 |
| 30. | Environment Council of Central Queensland Inc. | Minister for the Environment and Water & Anor (M50/2024) | Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia [2024] FCAFC 56 | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 201 |
| 31. | Environment Council of Central Queensland Inc. | Minister for the Environment and Water & Anor (M51/2024) | Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia [2024] FCAFC 56 | Special leave refused with costs [2024] HCASL 201 |
| 32. | The King | Bredal (S72/2024) | Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) [2024] NSWCCA 75 | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 202 |
| 33. | Dedeoglu | The King (S145/2023) | Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) [2023] NSWCCA 126 | Special leave refused [2024] HCASL 203 |
0
129
0