|
Masson v Parsons [2019] HCA 21Before Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Constitutional law (Cth) – Courts – Federal courts – Federal jurisdiction – Matter arising under Commonwealth law – Where Commonwealth law provides rules in respect of parentage of children born of artificial conception procedures – Where State law provides irrebuttable presumption that biological father of child conceived by fertilisation procedure is not father in specified circumstances – Whether s 79(1) of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) operates to pick up and apply text of State law as Commonwealth law – Whether State law regulates exercise of jurisdiction – Whether Commonwealth law has "otherwise provided" within meaning of s 79(1) of Judiciary Act – Whether tests for contrariety under s 79(1) of Judiciary Act and s 109 of Constitution identical – Whether State law applies of its own force in federal jurisdiction.
Family law – Parenting orders – Meaning of "parent" – Where Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) presumes best interests of child served by shared parental responsibility – Where s 60H of Family Law Act provides rules in respect of parentage of children born of artificial conception procedures – Where appellant provided semen to first respondent to conceive child with belief that he was fathering child – Where appellant had ongoing role in child's financial support, health, education and general welfare and enjoyed extremely close and secure attachment relationship with child – Where first respondent later in de facto relationship with second respondent – Where appellant found to be "parent" within ordinary meaning of word but not under s 60H – Whether s 60H exhaustive of persons who may qualify as "parent" of child born of artificial conception procedure – Whether "parent" used in Family Law Act according to ordinary meaning except as otherwise provided – Whether appellant is "parent" within ordinary meaning – Whether ordinary meaning of "parent" excludes "sperm donor" – Whether appellant is "sperm donor". Words and phrases – "artificial conception procedure", "complete upon its face", "federal courts", "federal jurisdiction", "implicit negative proposition", "inconsistency", "irrebuttable presumption", "jurisdiction", "matter", "ordinary meaning", "otherwise provided", "parent", "parentage", "parenting orders", "picked up and applied", "power", "presumptions", "regulates the exercise of jurisdiction", "sperm donor", "State jurisdiction", "State legislative power", "status". Constitution – s 109. Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – ss 4, 60B, 60EA, 60G, 60H, 61D, 61DA. Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – s 79(1). Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) – Pt 3 Div 1. |
|
Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20Before Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Corporations – External administration – Receivers and other controllers of property – Priority debts – Where corporation carrying on business solely as trustee created circulating security interest over trust assets in favour of bank – Where receivers and managers appointed by bank realised trust assets and satisfied obligations to bank – Whether surplus proceeds required to be paid in accordance with Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 433 – Whether corporation's right of indemnity is property of the company "comprised in or subject to a circulating security interest" within meaning of s 433 – Whether trust assets themselves are such "property of the company" – Whether statutory order of priorities for payment of debts applicable to distribution of surplus proceeds from trust assets among trust creditors – Whether proceeds from exercise of insolvent corporate trustee's right of exoneration to be applied only in satisfaction of trust liabilities to which it relates.
Trusts – Trustees – Right of indemnity – Whether trustee's right of indemnity confers beneficial interest in trust assets – Whether such interest is "property" within meaning of Corporations Act, s 9. Words and phrases – "beneficial interest", "circulating asset", "circulating security interest", "floating charge", "insolvent corporate trustee", "payment of creditors out of property", "power of exoneration", "PPSA security interest", "priority payments", "property", "property comprised in or subject to a circulating security interest", "property held by the bankrupt on trust", "property of the company", "right of exoneration", "right of indemnity", "taking possession or assuming control of property", "trust asset", "trust liabilities". Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – ss 9, 51, 51C, 433, 555, 556, 560. Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) – ss 10, 12, 340. |
|
Northern Territory v Mr A. Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples [No 2] [2019] HCA 19Before Nettle J
Practice and procedure – High Court – Suppression and non-publication orders – Power to make – Where expert evidence and gender restricted evidence of senior males of Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples admitted in support of compensation claims in native title proceedings – Whether suppression or non-publication orders in respect of such evidence necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
Words and phrases – "administration of justice", "gender restricted knowledge", "suppression order". Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – ss 77RD, 77RE, 77RF. |
|
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt [2019] HCA 18Before Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Trade practices – Consumer protection – Unconscionable conduct – Where s 12CB(1) of Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) relevantly prohibited "unconscionable" conduct in trade or commerce in connection with supply or possible supply of financial services – Where respondent provided "book-up" credit to Anangu customers of general store – Where book-up credit allowed deferral of whole or part of payment for goods subject to respondent retaining customer's debit card and personal identification number – Where respondent used debit card to withdraw whole or nearly whole of wages or Centrelink payments shortly after credited to prevent customers having practical opportunity to access monies – Where respondent applied part of withdrawn funds to reduce customer's indebtedness and made remainder available for provision of future goods and services – Where respondent's record-keeping inadequate and often illegible – Where customers vulnerable due to remoteness, limitations on education, impoverishment and low levels of financial literacy – Where book-up system "tied" Anangu customers to general store – Where customers had understanding of basic elements of book-up system – Where withdrawals authorised by customers – Where customers generally supportive of book-up and respondent's business – Where book-up protected customers from cultural practices requiring sharing of resources with certain categories of kin – Where book-up ameliorated effects of "boom and bust" cycle of expenditure and allowed purchase of food between pay days – Whether respondent's conduct unconscionable within meaning of s 12CB(1) of Act.
Words and phrases – "agency", "book-up", "credit", "cultural practices", "demand sharing", "dishonesty", "exploitation", "financial literacy", "humbugging", "inequality of bargaining power", "legitimate interests", "moral obloquy", "passive acceptance", "power imbalance", "special disadvantage", "standard of conscience", "system or pattern of conduct", "transparency or accountability", "unconscientious conduct", "unconscionable conduct", "undue influence", "unfair", "unjust", "unwritten law", "victimisation", "voluntary", "vulnerability". Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) – ss 12CA, 12CB, 12CC. |
|
Plaintiff M47/2018 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] HCA 17Before Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Immigration – Unlawful non-citizens – Detention pending removal from Australia – Where s 189 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) requires unlawful non-citizen be detained – Where s 196 requires unlawful non-citizen detained under s 189 be kept in immigration detention – Where plaintiff an unlawful non-citizen – Where plaintiff arrived in migration zone using false passport and personal details – Where plaintiff kept in immigration detention since arrival in migration zone – Where plaintiff previously used false personal details – Where plaintiff's identity and nationality not known – Whether ss 189 and 196 authorise plaintiff's detention – Whether ss 189 and 196 constitutionally valid in application to plaintiff.
High Court – Original jurisdiction – Practice – Special case – Drawing of inferences – Where factual basis of questions of law depends on drawing inferences under r 27. 08. 5 of High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where inferences concern likelihood of plaintiff's future removal from Australia – Where prospects of plaintiff's future removal depend on information provided by plaintiff and cooperation by plaintiff – Where plaintiff made false statements and failed to assist and cooperate – Where plaintiff gave inconsistent accounts of personal and family background – Where plaintiff seeks to take advantage of falsehoods and non-cooperation – Whether inferences can be drawn. Words and phrases – "habeas corpus", "identity", "immigration detention", "inferences", "onus of proof", "prospects of removal", "real prospect", "reasonably foreseeable", "special case", "unlawful non-citizen". High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) – r 27. 08. 5. Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 189, 196, 198. |
