|
Plaintiff M174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 16Before Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Migration – Pt 2 Div 3 subdiv AB of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where plaintiff applied for protection visa – Where plaintiff claimed real chance of harm due to being Christian – Where plaintiff claimed to attend church regularly – Where delegate of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection called reverend of church and reverend provided information on plaintiff's attendance at church – Where delegate did not provide plaintiff with information provided by reverend or invite plaintiff to comment on it – Where delegate refused to grant protection visa to plaintiff – Whether delegate failed to comply with s 57(2) of Migration Act.
Migration – Pt 7AA of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where plaintiff "fast track review applicant" within meaning of Migration Act – Whether decision affected by jurisdictional error because of failure to comply with s 57(2) a "fast track reviewable decision" within meaning of Pt 7AA – Where "new information" defined as documents or information not before Minister when deciding to refuse to grant protection visa that Immigration Assessment Authority considers may be relevant – Power of Authority to get new information – Power of Authority to consider new information – Obligation of Authority to invite applicant to comment on new information – Nature of review by Authority – Whether Authority's decision not to interview plaintiff and certain other persons or to have regard to certain information provided by plaintiff legally unreasonable. Words and phrases – "condition of valid performance", "decision", "decision that is made in fact", "de novo consideration of the merits", "exceptional circumstances", "fast track reviewable decision", "jurisdictional error", "legally effective decision", "legally unreasonable", "new information", "not a valid decision", "not previously known", "personal information", "relevant information", "review material", "unreasonable failure to exercise power", "would be the reason, or part of the reason for refusing to grant a visa". Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 5, 46A, 54, 55, 56, 57, 69, Pt 7AA. Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – reg 4. 43. |
|
Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15Before Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Constitutional law (Cth) – Chapter III – Where complaints made under Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) came before Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales ("NCAT") – Where parties to disputes residents of different States – Where common ground that NCAT exercised State judicial power in hearing and determining disputes – Where common ground that NCAT not a "court of a State" – Whether Ch III of Constitution contains implication preventing any party to federal compact from conferring adjudicative authority in respect of matters listed in ss 75 and 76 of Constitution on organ of government, federal or State, other than a court referred to in Ch III.
Constitutional law (Cth) – Inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws – Where Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) purports to confer jurisdiction on NCAT to determine disputes between residents of different States – Whether State law alters, impairs or detracts from operation of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39(2). Words and phrases – "adjudicative authority", "administrative tribunal", "alter, impair or detract", "belongs to or is invested in", "constitutional implication", "court", "court of a State", "diversity jurisdiction", "federal Judicature", "federal jurisdiction", "inconsistency", "integrated national court system", "judicial power", "jurisdiction", "matter", "negative implication", "residents of different States", "State jurisdiction". Constitution – Ch III, ss 51(xxxix), 71, 73(ii), 75, 76, 77, 106, 107, 108, 109. Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – ss 38, 39. Anti –Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), ss 49ZT, 114. Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – ss 28(2), 29(1), 32. Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) – s 31. |
|
WET044 v The Republic of Nauru [2018] HCA 14Before Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane JJ
Migration – Refugees – Appeal as of right from Supreme Court of Nauru – Where Secretary of Nauru Department of Justice and Border Control determined appellant not refugee and not entitled to complementary protection – Where Refugee Status Review Tribunal affirmed Secretary's determination – Where Tribunal adopted reasoning of Secretary – Whether Tribunal failed to consider country information before it – Whether Tribunal acted in way that was procedurally unfair by failing to put to appellant nature and content of country information it relied upon.
Words and phrases – "appeal", "country information", "procedural fairness". Appeals Act 1972 (Nr) – s 44(a). Refugees Convention Act 2012 (Nr). |
|
Craig v The Queen [2018] HCA 13Before Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Murder and manslaughter – Intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm – Incorrect advice – Where appellant's case was that he had not intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm – Where appellant incorrectly advised that giving evidence would likely lead to cross-examination on prior convictions – Where chance of cross-examination on prior convictions possible but not likely due to s 15(2) of Evidence Act 1977 (Q) – Where appellant's account of incident to his solicitor inconsistent with prior statements to police – Where appellant was correctly advised that giving evidence would likely lead to cross-examination on inconsistencies – Where appellant gave evidence on appeal that had he been physically and mentally well and absent the incorrect advice he would have given evidence at trial – Where no evidence to suggest trial would have been conducted differently absent the incorrect advice – Whether no miscarriage of justice.
Words and phrases – "criminal history", "cross-examination", "decision not to give evidence", "fair trial", "inconsistent evidence", "incorrect advice", "intent", "intoxication", "miscarriage of justice", "murder", "prior convictions". Criminal Code (Q) – ss 644, 668E(1). Evidence Act 1977 (Q) – s 15. |
|
Clone Pty Ltd v Players Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers & Managers Appointed) [2018] HCA 12Before Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Equity – Where judgment given by Supreme Court of South Australia, as varied by Full Court of Supreme Court of South Australia – Where successful party engaged in malpractice – Where malpractice later discovered – Where perfected judgment set aside – Where no pleading or proof of fraud – Nature of court's equitable power to set aside perfected judgment – Whether equitable power extends to malpractice not amounting to fraud – Whether power to set aside perfected judgment conditional upon unsuccessful party having exercised reasonable diligence to discover fraud or malpractice.
Procedure – Perfected judgment – Rescission – Where two applications brought to set aside judgment – Where judgment set aside for malpractice – Whether proper course application in original proceeding or fresh action. Words and phrases – "actual fraud", "causation", "equitable jurisdiction", "equitable power", "equity", "finality", "fraud", "fresh action", "malpractice", "misconduct", "new trial", "not amounting to fraud", "perfected judgment", "perfected orders", "power", "proper application", "reasonable diligence", "setting aside". Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) – s 17(2)(a)(i). |
