Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 29 April 2014 24 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2014] HCAB 03 (29 April 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
Attorney-General (NT) v Emmerson	Constitutional Law
Achurch v The Queen	Criminal Law
Taylor v The Owners - Strata Plan No 11564	Statutes
NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages v Norrie	Statutes
Thiess v Collector of Customs & Ors	Statutes

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
MacarthurCook Fund Management Limited & Anor v TFML Limited	Corporations Law
Lee v The Queen; Lee v The Queen	Criminal Law
Sidhu v Van Dyke	Equity
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker	Employment Law
ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd v Goudappel and Anor	Statutes

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
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

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Versi v The Queen	Evidence
Alphapharm Pty Ltd H Lundbeck A/S & Ors	Patents
Commissioner of Taxation v MBI Properties Pty Ltd	Taxation

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the February 2014 sittings.

Constitutional Law

Attorney-General (NT) v Emmerson

D5/2013: [2014] HCA 13.

Judgment delivered: 10 April 2014.

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

Catchwords:

Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of the Commonwealth – Constitution, Ch III – Section 36A of Misuse of Drugs Act (NT) and s 94 of Criminal Property Forfeiture Act (NT) effect statutory scheme for forfeiture of property – Section 36A provides that Supreme Court can declare a person to be a "drug trafficker" – Section 94(1) provides for forfeiture to Northern Territory of property subject to restraining order that is owned, effectively controlled or given away by that person – Where Director of Public Prosecutions successfully applied to Supreme Court for declaration that first respondent was a drug trafficker – Whether statutory scheme enlists Supreme Court to give effect to decisions of Executive – Whether statutory scheme compatible with independence and institutional integrity of Supreme Court as repository of federal jurisdiction.
Legislative power – Acquisition of property on just terms – Section 50(1) of Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (Cth) provides that power of Northern Territory Legislative Assembly does not extend to making laws with respect to acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms – Where statutory scheme provides for forfeiture to Northern Territory of property subject to restraining order that is owned, effectively controlled or given away by person declared to be a "drug…

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 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Attorney-General (NT) v Emmerson [2014] HCA 13 was an appeal against a decision of the Northern Territory Supreme Court that the respondent was a drug trafficker under the Misuse of Drugs Act (NT). The legal issues were whether the statutory scheme that provided for the forfeiture of property to the Northern Territory of property subject to a restraining order that was owned, effectively controlled or given away by a person declared to be a drug trafficker was compatible with the independence and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court and whether the scheme effected an acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms. The High Court found that the scheme was compatible with the independence and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court as it did not enlist the Court to give effect to decisions of the Executive. However, the scheme did effect an acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms. The appeal was allowed and the decision of the Supreme Court was set aside.

In Achurch v The Queen [2014] HCA 10, the appellant was convicted of drug crimes and sentenced. The Crown appealed against the sentences and the Court of Criminal Appeal re-sentenced the appellant. The appellant applied under s 43 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) for re-sentencing proceedings to be re-opened. The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the application. The legal issue was whether the sentences imposed by the re-sentencing court were open at law and whether they were imposed "contrary to law". The High Court found that the sentences imposed by the re-sentencing court were open at law and that there was no error in law in the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision. The appeal was dismissed.

In Taylor v The Owners – Strata Plan No 11564 & Ors [2014] HCA 9, the legal issue was whether s 12(2) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) limited awards of damages under Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW), ss 3, 4 and whether the s 12(2) limitation applied to the deceased's gross weekly earnings. The High Court found that s 12(2) did limit awards of damages and that the limitation applied to the deceased's gross weekly earnings. The appeal was allowed.

In NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages v Norrie [2014] HCA 11, the legal issue was whether the Registrar had the power to register a "change of sex" under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) as "non-specific". The High Court found that the Registrar did not have the power to register a change of sex as "non-specific". The appeal was dismissed and the respondent's applications were remitted to the Registrar.

Orders