Judgments, ordered by date

Browsing By Year (2019)

Now Showing items 1 to 20   Next Page

Jump to page of 3


CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] HCA 50

Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 13 Dec 2019 Case Number: M72/2019
Immigration – Refugees – Application for protection visa – Where Pt 7AA of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) requires Immigration Assessment Authority ("IAA") to review certain decisions to refuse applications for protection visas – Where s 473CB(1)(a), (b) and (d) requires Secretary of Department to give certain material to IAA to conduct review – Where s 473CB(1)(c) requires Secretary to give to IAA any other material Secretary considers relevant to review – Where s 473DB requires IAA to review decision by considering material given by Secretary – Where Secretary gave material to IAA pursuant to s 473CB(1)(c) – Where material irrelevant to task of IAA – Where material prejudicial to applicant – Where applicant unaware of material – Whether jurisdictional error by Secretary – Whether jurisdictional error invalidated decision of IAA – Whether apprehended bias. Administrative law – Judicial review – Procedural fairness – Where s 473FA requires IAA to operate free of bias – Whether apprehended bias.

Words and phrases – "apprehended bias", "bias", "fair-minded lay observer", "fast track reviewable decision", "Immigration Assessment Authority", "impartial", "irrelevant", "irrelevant and prejudicial material", "jurisdictional error", "material", "materiality", "prejudicial", "prejudicial but inadmissible", "procedural fairness", "professional decision maker", "reasonable apprehension of bias", "relevant", "relevant to the review", "required to consider", "review material", "rule against bias", "subconscious bias".

Constitution – s 75(v).

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Pt 7AA.

Boensch v Pascoe [2019] HCA 49

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 13 Dec 2019 Case Number: S216/2019
Bankruptcy – Bankrupt estate – Where "the property of the bankrupt" vested in trustee in bankruptcy pursuant to s 58 of Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – Where bankrupt held estate in land under Torrens system on trust – Whether property held by bankrupt on trust capable of vesting in trustee in bankruptcy – Whether bankrupt had a valid beneficial interest – Whether estate vested in trustee in bankruptcy in equity.

Real property – Torrens system – Caveats – Where trustee in bankruptcy lodged caveat claiming "Legal Interest pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act 1966" and refused or failed to withdraw caveat after request – Whether caveator liable to pay compensation under s 74P(1) of Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) for lodging and maintaining caveat "without reasonable cause" – Whether existence of caveatable interest or honest belief on reasonable grounds in such interest sufficient for "reasonable cause" – Whether claimant established that caveator had neither caveatable interest in property nor honest belief on reasonable grounds in having such interest – Whether possibility of trust being set aside under s 120 or s 121 of Bankruptcy Act conferred caveatable interest – Whether caveat adequately described equitable estate in fee simple – Whether deficiency in statement of interest demonstrated absence of "reasonable cause".

Trusts – Trustees – Right of indemnity – Where trustee incurred significant expenses in his capacity as trustee ordinarily entitling him to be indemnified out of trust property – Where trustee asserted "mutually beneficial arrangement" with "the trust" – Whether asserted arrangement prejudiced trustee's right of indemnity wholly or in part – Whether value of benefits to trustee under asserted arrangement equal to or exceeded total of trust expenses incurred.

Words and phrases – "beneficial interest", "caveatable interest", "caveat against dealings", "circuity of action", "contingent beneficial interest", "determination of non-dispositive issues in appeals", "honest belief on reasonable grounds", "judicial economy", "most remote possibility of interest", "property held by the bankrupt in trust for another person", "right of indemnity", "subject to the equities", "the property divisible among the bankrupt's creditors", "the property of the bankrupt", "without reasonable cause".

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – ss 5(1), 58, 116.

Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) – ss 74F(1), 74K, 74P(1), 90.

De Silva v The Queen [2019] HCA 48

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Nettle, Gordon JJ
Date: 13 Dec 2019 Case Number: B24/2019
Criminal practice – Trial – Directions to jury – Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 ("Liberato") – Where appellant convicted by jury of rape – Where appellant did not give sworn evidence at trial – Where appellant made exculpatory statements in recorded police interview – Where record of interview admitted into evidence – Where appellant did not seek Liberato direction at trial – Where trial judge did not give Liberato direction – Whether Liberato direction required where accused does not give sworn evidence – Whether Liberato direction required where record of interview containing exculpatory statements admitted into evidence.

Words and phrases – "beyond reasonable doubt", "choice between witnesses", "conflicting version of events", "criminal standard", "evidence on oath", "exculpatory answers", "interview with the police", "jury directions", "Liberato direction", "onus and standard of proof", "out-of-court statement", "recorded interview", "summing-up as a whole", "sworn evidence", "who do you believe", "word-on-word".

DBE17 (by his litigation guardian Marie Theresa Arthur) v Commonwealth of Australia [2019] HCA 47

Nettle J
Date: 6 Dec 2019 Case Number: M124/2019
Immigration – Representative proceedings – Where plaintiff brought representative proceeding in High Court for damages for false imprisonment – Where claimed that Group Members purportedly detained under ss 189 and 196 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where claimed that detention for purpose of receiving, investigating or determining application for visa, or determining whether to permit valid application for visa to be made, or of removing relevant Group Member from Australia to regional processing country – Where claimed that detention lawful only for period during which purposes pursued and carried into effect as soon as reasonably practicable and capable of fulfilment – Where claimed that detention unlawful because purposes not carried into effect as soon as reasonably practicable or because detention continued at times during which purposes not capable of fulfilment – Where plaintiff applied for order remitting proceeding to Federal Court of Australia pursuant to s 44(2A) of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – Where s 476B(1) of Migration Act provided that High Court must not remit matter "that relates to a migration decision" to court other than Federal Circuit Court – Where s 468B(1) and (2) provided that representative proceeding not permitted where proceeding would "raise an issue in connection with visas . . . or removal of unlawful non-citizens" – Whether proceeding related to migration decision – Whether proceeding raised issue in connection with visas or removal of unlawful non-citizens.

Words and phrases – "class actions", "in relation to", "migration decision", "raises an issue in connection with", "relates to", "representative proceeding".

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – s 44.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 476A, 476B, 486A, 486B, 486C.

New South Wales v Robinson [2019] HCA 46

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 4 Dec 2019 Case Number: S119/2019
Police – Arrest without warrant – Where s 99(1) of Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) provides that police officer may, without warrant, arrest person if police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that person is committing or has committed offence and police officer is satisfied that arrest is reasonably necessary for one or more specified reasons – Where s 99(3) provides that police officer who arrests person under s 99 must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, take person before authorised officer to be dealt with according to law – Where police officer had not formed intention to charge arrested person with offence at time of arrest – Where police officer had not formed intention to bring arrested person before authorised officer to be dealt with according to law at time of arrest – Where arrested person brought claim for damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment – Whether arrest unlawful.

Words and phrases – "answer a charge for an offence", "arrest", "arrest without a warrant", "as soon as is reasonably practicable", "authorised officer", "dealt with according to law", "false imprisonment", "improper purpose", "intention to charge", "investigation period", "police officer", "power to arrest", "purpose of arrest", "suspects on reasonable grounds".

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) – ss 4, 99, 105, 109, 113, 114, 115, 116.

BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster [2019] HCA 45

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 4 Dec 2019 Case Number: S152/2019 S154/2019
Practice and procedure – Representative action – Orders – Where s 33ZF of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and s 183 of Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) provide that in representative proceeding court may make any order court thinks appropriate or necessary to ensure justice is done in proceeding – Where representative proceedings commenced in Federal Court of Australia and Supreme Court of New South Wales – Where proceedings funded by litigation funders – Where litigation funders entered into litigation funding agreements with small number of group members – Where representative parties in each proceeding applied for common fund order – Whether s 33ZF of Federal Court of Australia Act and s 183 of Civil Procedure Act empower Federal Court of Australia and Supreme Court of New South Wales to make common fund order.

Words and phrases – "access to justice", "appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding", "award of damages", "book building", "common fund", "common fund order", "distribution of moneys recovered", "equitable sharing of costs", "fair and reasonable to all group members", "free riding", "funding commission", "funding equalisation order", "interests of justice", "litigation funding", "representative proceeding", "risk", "unfunded group members".

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – Pt 10, ss 157, 162, 165, 166, 172, 173, 175, 177, 178, 179, 183, 184.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – Pt IVA, ss 33C, 33J, 33M, 33N, 33U, 33V, 33X, 33Z, 33ZA, 33ZB, 33ZF, 33ZJ.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – s 79.

EBT16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] HCA 44

Gageler J
Date: 13 Nov 2019 Case Number: B37/2019
Administrative law – Judicial review – Jurisdictional error – s 477 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where plaintiff applied to Federal Circuit Court of Australia for judicial review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Where plaintiff required extension of time – Where extension of time was refused under s 477(2) – Where Federal Circuit Court ordered that application be dismissed – Whether Federal Circuit Court had jurisdiction to dismiss application – Whether impermissible for Federal Circuit Court to assess full merits of application – Nature of prohibition imposed by s 477(1).

Words and phrases – "assessment of the merits", "authority to dismiss an application", "exercise of jurisdiction", "extension of time", "interests of the administration of justice", "judicial review", "jurisdiction", "prohibition in s 477(1)", "scope of jurisdiction".

Constitution – s 75(v).

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) – s 8(3).

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 476, 477.

Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [2019] HCA 41

Nettle J
Date: 22 Nov 2019 Case Number: P41/2019
Income tax (Cth) – Appeal against objection decision – Where Commissioner of Taxation ("Commissioner") issued amended assessments of taxable income following commencement of audit – Where taxpayer objected to amended assessments – Where objection decision made in respect of taxpayer's objection ("Objection Decision") – Where further amended assessments made consequent upon Objection Decision – Where taxpayer appealed against Objection Decision under Pt IVC of Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) ("Act") but not against further amended assessments – Where Commissioner conceded certain amounts incorrectly assessed as income ("Conceded Amounts") – Whether appeal under Pt IVC of Act was against Objection Decision or against further amendment assessments – Whether Commissioner's assessment excessive to extent of Conceded Amounts.

Administrative law – Judicial review – Jurisdictional error – Where primary judge determined appeal against Objection Decision under Pt IVC of Act – Where Full Court of Federal Court of Australia determined appeal against decision of primary judge – Where taxpayer sought writs of certiorari in respect of decisions of primary judge and Full Court – Whether primary judge and Full Court each misconstrued jurisdiction – Whether primary judge and Full Court committed jurisdictional error – Whether taxpayer's application for judicial review, after expiration of time in which to seek special leave to appeal, sufficient basis to dismiss application.

Words and phrases – "amended assessment", "disallowance of objection", "excessive assessment", "falsa demonstratio non nocet", "grounds of objection", "jurisdictional error", "misconceive jurisdiction", "non-jurisdictional error", "objection decision", "objection to assessment", "refusal of relief", "taxable income", "taxation decision", "taxation objection", "taxpayer's burden of proof", "wide survey and exact scrutiny".

Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) – Pt IVC.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) – ss 166, 167.

HT v The Queen [2019] HCA 40

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 13 Nov 2019 Case Number: S123/2019
Criminal practice – Appeal – Crown appeal against sentence – Procedural fairness – Where appellant provided assistance to law enforcement authorities – Where court required by statute to take assistance into account in sentencing – Where evidence of assistance kept confidential from appellant and appellant's legal representatives in sentencing proceedings – Where evidence contained highly sensitive criminal intelligence – Where appellant sought access to confidential evidence on appeal – Where Court of Criminal Appeal denied appellant access to confidential evidence on basis of public interest immunity – Where Court of Criminal Appeal exercised discretion under s 5D(1) of Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to re-sentence – Whether appellant denied procedural fairness – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal had power to deny appellant access to the confidential evidence – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal should have declined to exercise discretion to re-sentence.

Words and phrases – "access to evidence", "assistance to law enforcement authorities", "confidential information", "Crown appeal against sentence", "discount in sentence", "evidence of assistance", "mitigating factor", "non-disclosure", "open justice", "procedural fairness", "public interest immunity", "residual discretion", "tailored order".

Court Suppression and Non –publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), ss 7, 8.

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – ss 21A, 23.

Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – ss 5D(1), 12.

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – s 130.

Lordianto v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2019] HCA 39

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 13 Nov 2019 Case Number: S110/2019 P17/2019
Criminal practice – Forfeiture of tainted property – Where appellants remitted money to Australia using money remitters or money changers in foreign country – Where large number of cash deposits, usually each less than $10,000, made into appellants' bank accounts in Australia in process known as "cuckoo smurfing" – Where deposits proceeds or instrument of structuring offence under s 142 of Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) – Where Commissioner of Australian Federal Police successfully applied for restraining orders over appellants' bank accounts under s 19 of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) ("POCA") – Where appellants applied under ss 29 and 31 of POCA to have property excluded from orders – Whether property "ceased" to be proceeds or instrument of offence under s 330(4) of POCA – Whether property acquired by third party for sufficient consideration without third party knowing, and in circumstances that would not arouse reasonable suspicion, that property proceeds or instrument under s 330(4)(a) of POCA.

Words and phrases – "acquisition of property", "cuckoo smurfing", "for sufficient consideration", "in circumstances that would not have aroused a reasonable suspicion", "instrument of a serious offence", "money changers", "money laundering", "money remitters", "proceeds of an indictable offence", "proceeds of crime", "reporting threshold", "structuring offence", "third party", "volunteer".

Anti –Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), ss 5, 142.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) – ss 19, 29, 31, 317, 329, 330, 338.

Vella v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2019] HCA 38

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 6 Nov 2019 Case Number: S30/2019
Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power – Constitution – Ch III – State Parliament – Institutional integrity of State courts – Where s 5(1) of Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 (NSW) provides that State court may make order if satisfied that specified person has been convicted of serious criminal offence or involved in serious crime related activity and satisfied that reasonable grounds to believe that making of order would protect public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by that person in serious crime related activities – Where s 6(1) of Act provides that order against that specified person may contain such prohibitions, restrictions, requirements and other provisions as court considers appropriate for purpose of protecting public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by that person in serious crime related activities – Where proceedings under Act are civil proceedings – Whether making order exercise of judicial power – Whether powers conferred by Act incompatible with State court's role as repository of federal judicial power – Whether powers conferred by Act substantially impair institutional integrity of State court.

Words and phrases – "appropriate", "balancing", "facilitates or is likely to facilitate", "future risk", "institutional integrity", "judicial power", "Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)", "open-textured", "preventing, restricting or disrupting", "preventive orders", "real or significant risk", "reasonable grounds to believe", "risk assessment", "serious crime related activities", "serious criminal offence".

Constitution – Ch III.

Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 (NSW) – ss 3, 5, 6.

Fennell v The Queen [2019] HCA 37

Kiefel CJ, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 6 Nov 2019 Case Number: B20/2019
Criminal law – Murder – Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Where appellant convicted by jury – Where Crown case based entirely on circumstantial evidence – Where circumstantial evidence related to opportunity and motive and miscellany of other inculpatory matters – Where evidence of opportunity and motive extremely weak – Where evidence connecting accused to alleged murder weapon based on glaringly improbable identification evidence – Whether verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to evidence.

Words and phrases – "basis for an inference", "circumstantial case", "contamination of recollection", "credibility and reliability", "glaringly improbable", "identification evidence", "identification of object", "motive", "murder weapon", "opportunity", "unreasonable verdict".

Criminal Code (Qld) – s 668E(1).

Commissioner of Taxation v Sharpcan Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 36

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Nettle, Gordon JJ
Date: 16 Oct 2019 Case Number: M52/2019
Income tax (Cth) – Allowable deductions – Where taxpayer had received percentage of income derived from 18 gaming machines operated by authorised gaming operator under Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (Vic) at its hotel premises – Where Gambling Regulation Act amended to provide for gaming machine entitlements ("GMEs") to be allocated directly to gaming venue operators – Where taxpayer bid for and was allocated 18 GMEs permitting it to operate gaming machines at its premises for ten years – Where taxpayer paid purchase price by instalments – Whether purchase price was outgoing on revenue account deductible under s 8-1 of Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) ("1997 Act") – Whether purchase price was expenditure incurred to preserve (but not enhance) value of goodwill in relation to legal or equitable right with value to taxpayer solely attributable to effect on goodwill deductible under s 40-880 of 1997 Act.

Words and phrases – "asset of enduring value", "barrier to entry", "blackhole expenditure", "capital account", "capital asset", "CGT asset", "CGT cost base", "CGT event", "gaming machine entitlements", "goodwill", "motive", "objective purpose", "once-and-for-all outgoing", "practical and business point of view", "purchase price funded out of revenue", "revenue account", "statutory rights", "structural solution".

Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (Vic) – Ch 3, Pt 4A.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) – ss 8-1, 40-880.

The Queen v A2 [2019] HCA 35

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 16 Oct 2019 Case Number: S43/2019 S44/2019 S45/2019
Statutes – Construction – Where s 45(1)(a) of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) provides that a person who "excises, infibulates or otherwise mutilates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person" is liable to imprisonment – Where two respondents charged with having "mutilated the clitoris" of each of complainants – Where other respondent charged with assisting those respondents following commission of those offences – Where defence case that procedure performed on complainants merely ritualistic – Where trial judge directed jury that word "mutilate" in context of female genital mutilation means "to injure to any extent" – Where trial judge directed jury that "clitoris" includes "clitoral hood or prepuce" – Whether "otherwise mutilates" should be given ordinary meaning or take account of context of female genital mutilation – Whether "clitoris" includes clitoral hood or prepuce – Whether trial judge misdirected jury as to meaning of "mutilate" and "clitoris".

Appeals – Where s 6(2) of Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) provides that if appeal against conviction allowed, subject to special provisions of Act, Court of Criminal Appeal "shall . . . quash the conviction and direct a judgment and verdict of acquittal to be entered" – Where s 8(1) provides that on appeal against conviction, Court of Criminal Appeal may order new trial if it considers that miscarriage of justice has occurred and it can be more adequately remedied by order for new trial than any other order – Where Court of Criminal Appeal allowed appeals against convictions based on construction of s 45(1)(a) of Crimes Act and on other grounds including that verdicts unreasonable or unsupported by evidence – Whether open to Court to quash conviction and decline to make further order – Whether sufficient evidence to warrant order for new trial – Whether matter should be remitted to Court of Criminal Appeal for redetermination of ground alleging that verdicts unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.

Words and phrases – "child abuse", "clitoris", "context", "de minimis injury", "female genital mutilation", "injury", "khatna", "mischief", "misdirected the jury", "mutilation", "offence provisions", "otherwise mutilates", "purposive construction", "ritualised circumcision", "sufficient evidence", "tissue damage", "umbrella term".

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 45.

Crimes (Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Act 1994 (NSW).

Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
– ss 6(2), 8(1).

BVD17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] HCA 34

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 9 Oct 2019 Case Number: S46/2019
Immigration – Refugees – Application for protection visa – Immigration Assessment Authority ("Authority") – Review by Authority under Pt 7AA of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where decision by delegate of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse protection visa referred to Authority for review – Where Secretary of Department of Immigration and Border Protection gave Authority documents and information – Where Secretary notified Authority that s 473GB applied to documents and information – Where s 473GB(3) conferred discretions on Authority, upon notification, to have regard to matter in document or to information and to disclose matter in document or information to referred applicant – Where documents and information not disclosed to referred applicant during review – Where fact of notification not disclosed to referred applicant during review – Whether procedural fairness required Authority to disclose fact of notification to referred applicant.

Administrative law – Judicial review – Jurisdictional error – Procedural fairness – Where Div 3 of Pt 7AA, s 473GA and s 473GB provided exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule in relation to reviews by Authority – Whether implied obligation of procedural fairness precluded.

Words and phrases – "disclosure", "document or information", "exhaustive statement", "fact of notification", "natural justice hearing rule", "notification", "exclusion of procedural fairness".

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Pt 7AA.

Connective Services Pty Ltd v Slea Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 33

Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 9 Oct 2019 Case Number: M203/2018
Companies – Shares – Implied prohibition against financial assistance by company to acquire shares in company – Meaning of "financial assistance" – Where s 260A(1) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that company may financially assist a person to acquire shares in the company only if giving the assistance does not materially prejudice the interests of the company or its shareholders, or the company's ability to pay its creditors – Where appellant companies' constitutions contained pre-emption clause which provided that, before a shareholder could transfer shares of a particular class, those shares must first be offered to existing shareholders of that class in proportion to the number of shares of that class already held by that shareholder – Where sole shareholder of one shareholder company entered into agreements for sale of shares – Where appellant companies claimed that agreements breached pre-emptive rights provisions – Where injunction sought under s 1324 of Corporations Act to restrain appellant companies from prosecuting proceedings in relation to pre emptive rights on basis that proceedings contravened the prohibition against financial assistance in s 260A(1) – Whether funding by company of legal proceedings directed at compelling one shareholder to offer shares to other shareholders is financial assistance – Whether the companies should be enjoined from continuing legal proceedings at their expense to vindicate alleged breach of pre-emptive rights.

Words and phrases – "acquisition of shares", "creditors", "financial assistance", "implied prohibition against financial assistance", "injunction", "material prejudice", "power to enforce company constitution", "pre-emptive rights", "shareholders".

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – ss 260A(1), 1324(1).

Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 32

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 9 Oct 2019 Case Number: M197/2018
Restitution – Unjust enrichment – Work and labour done – Where land owners and builder entered into contract to which Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) applied – Where contract provided for progress payments at completion of stages – Where owners requested, and builder carried out, variations to plans and specifications in contract without giving written notice as required by s 38 of Act – Where owners repudiated contract after builder raised invoice claiming for variations – Where contract terminated by builder's acceptance of owners' repudiation – Whether s 38 of Act applied to limit amount recoverable by builder for variations – Whether builder entitled to recover in restitution as alternative to claim in damages for breach of contract – Whether contract price operated as ceiling on amount recoverable by way of restitution.

Words and phrases – "accrued rights", "alternative restitutionary remedy", "common counts", "completed stage", "contract price ceiling", "contractual incentives", "domestic building contract", "failure of basis", "failure of consideration", "limit on recovery", "measure of restitution", "notice", "primary and secondary obligations", "principle of legality", "protective provisions", "qualifying or vitiating factor", "quantum meruit", "quasi-contractual obligation", "repudiation", "restitution", "subjective devaluation", "unjust enrichment", "variations", "work and labour done".

Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) – ss 1, 3, 4, 16, 27, 38, 39, 53, 132.

Minogue v Victoria [2019] HCA 31

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 11 Sep 2019 Case Number: M162/2018
Constitutional law – State Parliament – Constitution – Ch III – Where plaintiff convicted of murder of police officer – Where plaintiff sentenced to imprisonment for life with non-parole period – Where plaintiff's non-parole period expired – Where s 74AB of Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) prevented making of parole order in respect of plaintiff unless Adult Parole Board satisfied plaintiff in imminent danger of dying or seriously incapacitated and does not have physical ability to harm any person, and does not pose risk to community – Where s 74AB identified plaintiff by name and applied only to plaintiff – Where plaintiff not in imminent danger of dying or seriously incapacitated – Where s 74AAA of Corrections Act imposed conditions for making parole order if person convicted of murder and victim police officer – Whether ss 74AB and 74AAA contrary to Ch III of Constitution and therefore invalid – Whether ss 74AB and 74AAA impermissibly legislatively resentenced plaintiff – Whether ss 74AB and 74AAA impose additional or separate punishment to that imposed by sentencing court – Whether s 74AB distinguishable from provision upheld in Knight v Victoria (2017) 261 CLR 306; [2017] HCA 29 – Whether Knight and Crump v New South Wales (2012) 247 CLR 1; [2012] HCA 20 should be reopened.
Words and phrases – "additional or separate punishment", "judicial power", "legislative punishment", "legislatively resentenced", "life imprisonment", "minimum term", "more punitive or burdensome to liberty", "non-parole period", "opportunity to be considered for release on parole", "parole", "severity of the punishment", "substantive operation and practical effect".
Constitution, Ch III. Corrections Act 1986 (Vic), ss 74AAA, 74AB, 127A.

Taylor v Attorney-General (Cth) [2019] HCA 30

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 11 Sep 2019 Case Number: M36/2018
Criminal practice – Private prosecution – Authority to prosecute – Where private citizen sought to commence criminal proceeding for offence of crime against humanity contrary to s 268. 11 of Criminal Code (Cth) – Where offence located within Div 268 of Criminal Code – Where s 268. 121(1) provides that proceedings under Div 268 must not be commenced without Attorney-General's written consent – Where Attorney-General did not consent – Where s 268. 121(2) of Criminal Code provides that offence against Div 268 "may only be prosecuted in the name of the Attorney-General" – Where s 13(a) of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) provides that any person may "institute proceedings for the commitment for trial of any person in respect of any indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth" unless contrary intention appears – Whether s 268. 121(2) expresses contrary intention for purpose of s 13(a) – Whether s 268. 121(2) precludes private prosecution of offence against Div 268.
Words and phrases – "commencement of proceedings", "committal", "consent", "consent of the Attorney-General", "contrary intention", "crime against humanity", "in the name of", "indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth", "private prosecution", "prosecuted in the name of the Attorney-General", "relator proceeding", "right to prosecute", "summary proceedings", "trial on indictment".
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 13(a). Criminal Code (Cth), ss 268. 11, 268. 121. Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 68, 69.

Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Nettle, Edelman JJ
Date: 4 Sep 2019 Case Number: B61/2018 B62/2018 B63/2018
Insurance law – Motor vehicles – Personal injury – Where appellant injured in motor vehicle collision – Where appellant gave evidence father driving vehicle at time of collision – Where appellant alleged injuries caused by negligence of father – Where appellant’s blood located on driver's airbag – Where expert evidence relating to possible source of blood – Where expert evidence relating to seatbelt and airbag design – Where trial judge concluded appellant driving vehicle – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether trial judge's findings glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences.
Appeal – Rehearing – Where trial judge drew inferences and made findings of fact based on lay and expert evidence – Where Court of Appeal found inferences wrong in material respects – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to conclude trial judge misused advantage as trial judge – Whether Court of Appeal failed to conduct "real review" of evidence given and trial judge's reasons for judgment.
Words and phrases – "contrary to compelling inferences", "glaringly improbable", "real review", "trial judge's advantage".

Now Showing items 1 to 20   Next Page

Back to the top