Hsiao v Fazarri - [2019] HCATrans 196

[2019] HCATrans 196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M50 of 2019

B e t w e e n -
HSIAO
Applicant
and
FAZARRI
Respondent

NETTLE J
GORDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 10 OCTOBER 2019, AT 9.31 AM

NETTLE J: In this application Justice Gordon and I order that special leave to appeal be granted. The parties will be contacted about the estimates of time for the hearing of the matter. The parties will also be made aware of the directions necessary for undertaking the appeal.

AT 9.31 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

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 Hsiao v Fazarri 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: [2019] HCATrans 196
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In an application before the High Court of Australia, Mr. Hsiao sought special leave to appeal against a decision concerning him and Mr. Fazarri. The specific nature of the dispute between the parties and the lower court's decision from which the appeal was sought are not detailed in this transcript.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether to grant special leave to appeal. This involves determining if the case raises a question of law that is of general public importance, or if there is another compelling reason for the High Court to hear the appeal.

Justices Nettle and Gordon considered the application and ordered that special leave to appeal be granted. They further directed that the parties would be contacted regarding time estimates for the hearing of the appeal and would be informed of the necessary directions for its conduct.

Orders