North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Limited & Anor v Northern Territory of Australia - [2015] HCATrans 135

[2015] HCATrans 135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M45 of 2015

B e t w e e n -
NORTH AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL JUSTICE AGENCY LIMITED (ACN 118 017 842)
First Plaintiff
MIRANDA MARIA BOWDEN
Second Plaintiff
and
NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
Defendant
Directions hearing

NETTLE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM MELBOURNE BY VIDEO LINK TO DARWIN

ON WEDNESDAY, 3 JUNE 2015, AT 9.30 AM

MR M.K. MOSHINSKY, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear for my learned friend, MS K.E. FOLEY, for the plaintiffs. (instructed by Ashurst Australia)

MR M.P. GRANT, QC, Solicitor‑General for the Northern Territory: May it please the Court, I appear with MS S.L. BROWNHILL for the defendant. (instructed by Solicitor for the Northern Territory)

HIS HONOUR: Mr Moshinsky, we got yesterday the draft stated case. Has it yet been agreed upon or is time still required?

MR MOSHINSKY: It is agreed upon, your Honour. We reached agreement yesterday afternoon. It has not formally been signed yet but the parties are in agreement.

HIS HONOUR: I direct this to both of you, Mr Moshinsky and Mr Grant. There is an opportunity for this matter to be heard in September if the interlocutory process can be achieved within that time. It would require a fairly accelerated timetable. Are the parties able to do it?

MR MOSHINSKY: Yes, we are, your Honour. I have had discussions with my learned friend, Mr Grant, and we have some agreed dates, subject to the Court’s satisfaction with these dates, which would enable that to take place.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR MOSHINSKY: Would it be convenient if I read out that proposed timetable, your Honour?

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR MOSHINSKY: By 10 June the parties would file the special case. By 6 July the plaintiffs would file and serve the special case book. By 10 July the plaintiffs would file and serve their written submissions.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR MOSHINSKY: By 10 August the defendant would file and serve its written submissions. Then any interveners would file and serve their written submissions seven days after written submissions by the party in support of whom the intervention is made is to be made and filed. Then, by 24 August, the plaintiffs would file and serve their written submissions in reply.

HIS HONOUR: That was 24 August?

MR MOSHINSKY: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: It is too tight. It might get listed in the first couple of weeks. We would have to bring it back a little.

MR MOSHINSKY: Yes, we can accommodate that. Certainly, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: What about the section 78B notice? Has that yet been served?

MR MOSHINSKY: It has, your Honour. That has been served and we will follow up as a matter of courtesy to the Attorneys‑General the further developments in the case, but the 78B notices have been served.

HIS HONOUR: If we make the filing of the special case…

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.

Continue reading North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Limited & Anor v...

Details

AGLC: North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Limited & Anor v Northern Territory of Australia [2015] HCATrans 135
Case: [2015] HCATrans 135
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this proceeding before the High Court of Australia were the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Limited, represented by Mr M.K. Moshinsky QC, and the Northern Territory of Australia, represented by Mr M.P. Grant QC, the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory. The dispute concerned the procedural timetable for the hearing of a special case.

The court was required to determine an appropriate and accelerated timetable for the filing of the special case, the special case book, written submissions from the parties, and any submissions from interveners, with the aim of having the matter heard in September. The court also needed to ensure compliance with section 78B notices.

The court's reasoning focused on managing the interlocutory processes to facilitate an early hearing. It adjusted the proposed timetable put forward by the parties, bringing forward certain filing deadlines to accommodate the court's availability. The court directed that the special case, in its agreed draft form, be filed and served by 10 July 2015, and that the questions of law stated therein be referred for hearing to a Full Court. Specific filing deadlines were set for the special case book, the plaintiffs' initial submissions, the defendant's submissions, interveners' submissions, and the plaintiffs' reply submissions, all with the intention of expediting the matter.

Orders