Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 28 June 2013 28 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2013] HCAB 05 (28 June 2013)

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
Plaintiff M79 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship	Administrative Law
State of NSW v Kable	Constitutional Law
Agius v The Queen	Criminal Law
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v JM	Criminal Law
Nguyen v The Queen	Criminal Law
Issa; & Elias v The Queen & Anor	Criminal Law
Maloney v The Queen	Discrimination Law
Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited & Ors	Equity
Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd [No 2]	Judgments and Orders
X7 v Australian Crime Commission and Anor	Statutes

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union v Mammoet Australia Pty Ltd ACN 075 483 644	Industrial Law
Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd & Ors	Intellectual Property
Legal Services Board v Gillespie-Jones	Legal Practitioners

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
There are no new matters ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court.

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd & Ors v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited & Ors	Civil Procedure
Munda v The Queen	Criminal Law
PEB v The Queen	Criminal Law
Reeves v The Queen	Criminal Law
Magaming v The Queen	Constitutional Law
Daly v Thiering & Ors	Statutes

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the May-June 2013 sittings.

Administrative Law

Plaintiff M79 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

M79/2012: [2013] HCA 24.

Judgment delivered: 29 May 2013.

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

Catchwords:

Administrative law – Migration – Refugees – Minister exercised power under s 195A(2) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to grant plaintiff temporary safe haven visa permitting stay of seven days and bridging visa permitting stay of six months – Temporary safe haven visa granted to engage bar imposed by s 91K of Act on making valid application for protection visa – Whether decision to grant temporary safe haven visa made without power – Whether decision to grant temporary safe haven visa made for improper purpose – Whether plaintiff's application for protection visa valid.

Words and phrases – "improper purpose", "offshore entry person", "public interest", "temporary safe haven visa".

This application for an order to show cause was filed in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia.

Return to Top

Constitutional Law

See also Discrimination Law: Maloney v The Queen

State of NSW v Kable

S233/2012: [2013] HCA 26.

Judgment delivered: 5 June…

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: [2013] HCAB 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard cases involving administrative law, constitutional law, criminal law, discrimination law, equity, and statutory interpretation. In the case of State of NSW v Kable, the court was asked to determine whether an order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, made under invalid legislation, could be considered a valid judicial order and whether the officers of the appellant could rely on the order as lawful authority. The court ruled that the order was not a valid judicial order and that the officers could not rely on the order as lawful authority. In the case of Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited & Ors, the court had to decide whether the gambling transactions were affected by unconscionable conduct and whether the appellant suffered from a special disadvantage making him susceptible to exploitation. The court found that the gambling transactions were not affected by unconscionable conduct and that the appellant did not suffer from a special disadvantage. The High Court of Australia also heard cases involving criminal law, including conspiracy, market manipulation, and sentencing. In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v JM, the court had to determine the meaning of "artificial price" in s 1041A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and whether the meaning was informed by United States of America conceptions of "cornering" and "squeezing". The court held that the meaning of "artificial price" was not informed by United States of America conceptions and that the prosecution had to prove that the transactions had the sole or dominant purpose of creating an artificial price. The High Court of Australia also heard cases involving discrimination law, equity, and statutory interpretation. In the case of Maloney v The Queen, the court had to decide whether certain restrictions on the possession of liquor on Palm Island affected the enjoyment of rights protected by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The court found that the restrictions did not affect the enjoyment of those rights. In the case of X7 v Australian Crime Commission and Anor, the court had to determine whether the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) empowered an examiner to conduct an examination of a person charged with an indictable Commonwealth offence where the examination concerned the offence charged. The court held that the Act did not empower the examiner to conduct such an examination.

Orders