Judgments, ordered by case name


Now Showing items 1 to 20   Next Page

Jump to page of 3

W.R. Carpenter Holdings Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] HCA 33

237 CLR 198; 82 ALJR 1211; 248 ALR 256
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel JJ
Date: 31 Jul 2008 Case Number: S652/2007 S653/2007
International agreements – Dealings between parties not at "arm's length" - Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), s 136AD(1) deemed consideration equal to "arm's length consideration" to be received or receivable by taxpayer in certain circumstances if respondent Commissioner determined sub-section should apply - Commissioner determined s 136AD(1) should apply to appellant taxpayers and included "deemed" interest in assessable income - Whether Commissioner obliged to consider fairness and reasonableness to taxpayer and taxpayer purpose or motive when making determination - Relevance of Constitution to statutory construction where tax liability dependent on conclusion of Commissioner respecting particular circumstance or state of affairs.

Income tax – Appeals - Pt IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) ("the Administration Act") - Appellants appealed to Federal Court under Pt IVC alleging assessments excessive - Proper issues for determination in Pt IVC proceedings where application of s 136AD(1) disputed.

Practice – Particulars - Pt IVC of the Administration Act - Appellants sought particulars of matters taken into account by Commissioner - Proper role of particulars in Pt IVC proceedings - Whether appellants entitled to particulars.

Words and phrases – "arm's length consideration", "excessive", "international agreement", "profit shifting motive", "substantive liability", "tax avoidance purpose".

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) – ss 136AC, 136AD, 136AF.

Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) – s 14ZZO.

WACB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] HCA 50

79 ALJR 94; 210 ALR 190
Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Heydon JJ
Date: 7 Oct 2004 Case Number: P92/2003
Immigration – Refugees - Non-citizen - Illiterate and unaccompanied minor in immigration detention - Application for review by the Federal Court of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - Whether under s 478(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) the application for review was lodged within 28 days of the applicant being notified of the decision - Whether applicant "notified of the decision" under s 478(1)(b) by being told of outcome of decision - Whether giving to the applicant the written statement under s 430 is required for notification under s 478(1)(b).

Statutes – Construction - Whether under s 478(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) the application for review was lodged within 28 days of the applicant being notified of the decision - Whether the Minister's obligations as statutory guardian under s 6 of the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 (Cth) are relevant to the construction of s 478(1)(b).

Words and phrases – "Notified of the decision", "decision", "give".

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 430, 430A, 430B, 430C, 430D, 478.

Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 (Cth) – ss 5, 6, 6A.

Wainohu v New South Wales [2011] HCA 24

243 CLR 181; 85 ALJR 746; 278 ALR 1
French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell JJ
Date: 23 Jun 2011 Case Number: S164/2010
Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth - Constitution, Ch III - Institutional integrity of State courts - Non-judicial functions conferred upon judges of State courts - Section 5 of Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2009 (NSW) ("Act") provided that Attorney-General may, with consent of judge, declare judge of Supreme Court to be an "eligible Judge" for purposes of Act - Section 6(1) provided that Commissioner of Police ("Commissioner") may apply to eligible Judge for declaration that particular organisation is a "declared organisation" for purposes of Act - Section 9(1) provided that eligible Judge may make declaration if satisfied members of particular organisation "associate for the purpose of organising, planning, facilitating, supporting or engaging in serious criminal activity", and that organisation "represents a risk to public safety and order" - Section 13(2) relevantly provided that eligible Judge not required to provide "any grounds or reasons" for making declaration - Part 3 of Act empowered Supreme Court to make, on application by Commissioner, control order against member of particular "declared organisation" - Whether function conferred by Act upon eligible Judge to make declaration without requirement to provide grounds or reasons repugnant to or incompatible with institutional integrity of Supreme Court - Whether substantial impairment of institutional integrity of Supreme Court.

Words and phrases – "incompatibility", "institutional integrity", "persona designata", "reasons".

Constitution – Ch III.

Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2009 (NSW) – ss 5, 6(1), 9(1), 12, 13(2), 14, 19.

Walker Corporation Pty Limited v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority [2008] HCA 5

233 CLR 259; 82 ALJR 489; 242 ALR 383
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan JJ
Date: 27 Feb 2008 Case Number: S307/2007 S308/2007
Real Property – Compulsory acquisition - Amount of compensation - Market value - Respondent acquired industrial zoned land by compulsory process under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) - Local council resisted attempts to rezone land for residential development before its acquisition - Whether effect of council's conduct on value of land should be disregarded in determining market value under s 56(1) of the Act.

Statutes – Interpretation - Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) - Section 56(1) of the Act defined market value - Pursuant to s 56(1)(a) any increase or decrease in the value of land caused by the carrying out of, or the proposal to carry out, the public purpose for which land was acquired was to be disregarded - Whether conduct of local council was part of proposal to carry out the public purpose for which land was compulsorily acquired by the respondent - Relevance of common law principles derived from other jurisdictions.

Words and phrases – "market value", "proposal", "scheme".

Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) – ss 55, 56(1)(a).

Wallaby Grip Limited v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2010] HCA 9

240 CLR 444; 84 ALJR 257; 264 ALR 425
French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Kiefel JJ
Date: 30 Mar 2010 Case Number: S281/2009 S284/2009
Insurance – Workers' compensation - Workers' Compensation Act 1926 (NSW) ("Act") s 18(1) required employers to obtain insurance or indemnity policy from insurer in respect of liability for injury to any worker - Act stipulated minimum level of cover in respect of employer's liability independently of Act - General terms and conditions of policy referred to in Act and in Appendix to Workers' Compensation Regulations 1926 (NSW) ("Regulations") - Where insurance policy lost - Where no evidence as to level of indemnity in policy - Whether any limitation upon indemnity imposed by Act or policy - Whether insurer or insured carries burden of proving limitation upon indemnity.

Statutory construction – Interaction between Act and Regulations - Whether Regulations can be used to construe Act.

Workers' Compensation Act 1926 (NSW) – ss 18(1), 18(3)(a), 18(5).

Workers' Compensation Regulations 1926 (NSW) – Div I, reg 1.

Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19

87 ALJR 648; 297 ALR 383
French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel, Gageler, Keane JJ
Date: 8 May 2013 Case Number: S307/2012
Negligence – Causation – Medical practitioner – Where medical practitioner failed to warn patient of two distinct material risks inherent in surgical procedure – Where only one risk eventuated – Where patient would have chosen not to undergo surgical procedure if warned of both risks – Where patient would have chosen to undergo surgical procedure if warned only of risk that eventuated – Whether failure to warn of both material risks was a necessary condition of injury caused by the risk that eventuated – Whether appropriate for scope of medical practitioner's liability to extend to that injury.

Words and phrases – "but for", "factual causation", "scope of liability".

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – s 5D.

Waller v Hargraves Secured Investments Limited [2012] HCA 4

245 CLR 311; 86 ALJR 229; 285 ALR 41
French CJ, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel JJ
Date: 29 Feb 2012 Case Number: S223/2011
Mortgages – Mortgagee's remedies – Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 (NSW) ("Act") – Creditor must provide notice of intention to take "enforcement action" under "farm mortgage" ("Notice") – Notice must specify availability of mediation regarding farm debts – Creditor unable to take enforcement action until NSW Rural Assistance Authority ("Authority") issues certificate that Act does not apply because satisfactory mediation has occurred – Borrower mortgaged land to secure all monies owed under loan agreement – Borrower defaulted and lender provided Notice – Borrower requested mediation under Act – Following mediation parties executed second and third loan agreements, discharged previous debts and created new farm debts – Authority satisfied of successful mediation and issued certificate certifying that Act did not apply to farm mortgage – Borrower defaulted in making interest payments due under third loan agreement – Whether successive farm debts created new "farm mortgage" requiring satisfactory mediation before creditor could pursue enforcement action – Whether separate Notice required for enforcement action under subsequent loan agreements – Whether certificate issued by Authority void – Whether lender's entitlement to possession of secured land and outstanding monies barred.

Words and phrases – "enforcement action", "farm debt", "farm mortgage", "in respect of the farm debt involved", "in respect of the farm mortgage concerned".

Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 (NSW) – ss 3, 4(1), 5(1), 6, 8, 9, 10(1), 11(1), 14, 17.

Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) – s 3(1).

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) – s 34.

Waller v James [2006] HCA 16

226 CLR 136; 80 ALJR 846; 226 ALR 457
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon, Crennan JJ
Date: 9 May 2006 Case Number: S231/2005 S232/2005
Torts – Medical negligence - Wrongful life - Agreed for the purposes of separate questions at first instance that respondents negligently failed during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) program and antenatal care to investigate and advise or warn parents in relation to genetic condition of the father where the condition posed a risk to the appellant child - Child conceived with inherited genetic condition - Child suffered serious disabilities as a result of the inherited genetic condition - Whether child can recover damages from the respondents.

Duty of care – Medical practitioners and medical service providers - Whether respondents owed the child a duty of care to investigate and advise or warn parents in relation to the risks of the inherited genetic condition, enabling parents to make informed decisions about IVF or termination of pregnancy - Foreseeability of risk to the appellant - Whether the facts of the case fall within the established duty of care which medical practitioners owe to foetuses to take reasonable care to prevent pre-natal injury - Vulnerability of the appellant - Need to distinguish duty of care from other elements of negligence - Relevance of duty of care owed to the appellant's mother - Whether duty of care owed to the appellant included duty to terminate life - Whether such a duty admissible in law.

Damage – Whether a life with disabilities is actionable damage - Whether it is possible to prove damage by comparing a life with disabilities with non-existence.

Damages – Assessment - Measure of damages - Compensatory principle -Non- existence as a comparator - Comparison to child born without genetic condition and consequent disabilities - Whether claim for special damages quantifiable - Whether only special damages may be awarded.

Public policy – Principle of the sanctity of human life - Whether life is capable of constituting a legally cognisable injury - Effect on disabled people of awarding damages for wrongful life - Whether it would be appropriate to award damages in respect of minor defects in circumstances where a child's mother would have terminated her pregnancy had she been warned of the risk of such defects - Whether disabled child could sue his or her mother for failing to terminate her pregnancy - Whether awarding damages for wrongful life would undermine familial relationships.

Statutes – Whether common law can be developed by analogy with legislation - Whether it is possible to develop the common law by analogy in circumstances where there is no relevant legislative provision in any Australian jurisdiction - Relevance of legislature's inaction.

Words and phrases – "wrongful life", "wrongful birth".

Wang v Johnston [2014] HCA 5

88 ALJR 408; 305 ALR 489
Hayne J
Date: 18 Feb 2014 Case Number: C17/2013 P55/2013 P56/2013
Parliamentary elections (Cth) – Senate – Court of Disputed Returns – Petitions disputing election – Election of six senators for State of Western Australia – Election for fifth and sixth Senate places very close – Re count of ballot papers directed – 1,370 ballot papers lost before re count – Re count of available ballot papers led to different candidates being elected to fifth and sixth Senate places from those determined upon "fresh scrutiny" under s 273 of Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) ("Act") – Whether result of election likely affected by loss of ballot papers – Whether electors who cast lost ballot papers "prevented from voting" in election – Whether Court precluded by s 365 of Act from admitting evidence of records made at earlier counts about lost ballot papers in determining whether result of election affected – Whether Court could declare candidate duly elected by combining records made in earlier counts about lost ballot papers with results of re count.

Words and phrases – "duly elected", "prevented from voting", "result of the election was likely to be affected".

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) – ss 263, 273, 281(3), 360(1)(v) (vii), 362(3), 365.

Washer v The State of Western Australia [2007] HCA 48

234 CLR 492; 82 ALJR 33; 239 ALR 610
Gleeson CJ, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan JJ
Date: 8 Nov 2007 Case Number: P6/2007
Evidence – Admissibility - Relevance - Appellant convicted of conspiracy to possess a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply it to another - Appellant had been previously acquitted of a conspiracy covering different times, parties and object, to possess a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply it to another - Trial judge admitted evidence tending to show the appellant was a drug dealer (the "drug dealing evidence") - The drug dealing evidence had been adduced in the earlier trial in which the appellant was acquitted - Trial judge directed the jury not to use the drug dealing evidence to infer that a person who dealt in drugs on one occasion was more likely to do so subsequently - Whether the drug dealing evidence was relevant to the offence of which the appellant was convicted - Whether evidence that the appellant had been acquitted of the previous charge was relevant and admissible.

Words and phrases – "the full effect of an acquittal", "the full benefit of an acquittal".

Wehbe v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] HCA 50

Edelman J
Date: 7 Nov 2018 Case Number: S217/2018
Administrative law – Judicial review – Jurisdictional error – Usual requirement that error must be material – When error will be material – Where visa criterion that there is no evidence that plaintiff has given bogus document – Where delegate of Minister for Home Affairs refused visa application because plaintiff provided bogus document – Where plaintiff accepted that document is bogus – Where plaintiff's migration agent made errors in communications with delegate – Whether agent's errors fraudulent – Whether agent's errors material.

Words and phrases – "bogus document", "compassionate or compelling circumstances", "deprived the plaintiff of the possibility of a successful outcome", "false or misleading statement", "jurisdictional error", "material", "materiality", "privative clause decision".

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – Sch 2, cl 820. 226, Sch 4, public interest criterion 4020.

Wei v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 51

Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJ
Date: 17 Dec 2015 Case Number: S9/2015
Migration – Visa cancellation – Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 116(1)(b) provides that Minister may cancel visa if satisfied that visa holder has not complied with condition of visa – Where delegate cancelled plaintiff's visa on satisfaction that plaintiff had breached visa condition – Where delegate's satisfaction formed by process of fact-finding tainted by non-compliance of third party with imperative statutory duty – Whether delegate failed to make obvious inquiry as to critical fact – Whether decision affected by jurisdictional error.

Migration – Original jurisdiction of High Court – Where plaintiff's application for remedy made outside time limit in Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 486A(1) – Operation of s 486A.

Words and phrases – "extension of time", "imperative duty", "jurisdictional error".

Constitution – s 75(v).

Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth) – s 19.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 116(1)(b), 119(1), 486A.

Weininger v The Queen [2003] HCA 14

212 CLR 629; 77 ALJR 872; 196 ALR 451
Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan JJ
Date: 2 Apr 2003 Case Number: S24/2002
Criminal law – Sentencing - Absence of prior conviction - Requirement to take into account "character and antecedents" in s 16A(2)(m) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - Whether absence of prior conviction gave rise to inference of lack of prior criminal conduct - Neither negative nor positive inference drawn - Absence of prior conviction did not demonstrate absence of prior criminal conduct - Whether absence of prior conviction relevant to sentencing apart from significance as to past character.

Criminal law – Sentencing - Relevance of uncharged criminal acts - Whether sentencing judge entitled to take such acts into account in determining sentence - Whether acts relevant to prisoner's entitlement to leniency otherwise on the ground that he was a first offender - Whether relevant to consideration of the prisoner's character - Whether in context of very heavy sentence such consideration indicated error of sentencing principle.

Words and Phrases – "character and antecedents".

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – ss 16A(2), 16A(2)(m).

Weinstock v Beck [2013] HCA 14

87 ALJR 554; 297 ALR 1
French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Gageler JJ
Date: 1 May 2013 Case Number: S266/2012
Corporations law – Management and administration – Directors and other officers – Appointment, removal and retirement of directors – Whether director validly appointed – Whether invalid appointment was "contravention" of company's constitution under s 1322(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Words and phrases – "appointment of director", "contravention of the constitution", "invalid appointment".

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – ss 1322(4), 1322(6).

Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81

224 CLR 300; 80 ALJR 444; 223 ALR 662
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon JJ
Date: 15 Dec 2005 Case Number: M50/2005
Criminal Law – Appeal - Application of "proviso" that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred - Appellant convicted of murder - Evidence led at trial that should not have been adduced - Appellant appealed against conviction - Appeal court to review the whole case - Utility of reference to what a jury, the actual trial jury or a hypothetical reasonable jury, would have done.

Words and phrases – "proviso", "substantial miscarriage of justice", "substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred".

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) – s 568(1).

Wellington Capital Limited v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2014] HCA 43

French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler JJ
Date: 5 Nov 2014 Case Number: S275/2013
Corporations – Managed investment schemes – Role of responsible entity under Ch 5C of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Construction of scheme constitution – Where responsible entity granted all powers "legally possible" for person or corporation to have – Where responsible entity made in specie distribution of scheme property to unit holders – Whether distribution beyond responsible entity's powers under scheme constitution.

Trusts – Managed investment schemes – Responsible entity as statutory trustee –Whether general principles of law relating to trusts apply to responsible entity's functions under scheme constitution.

Practice and procedure – Federal Court of Australia – Where Federal Court made declaration that responsible entity had no power under scheme constitution to distribute scheme property to unit holders – Where unit holders not represented in appeal – Whether Federal Court erred in exercising discretion to make declaration.

Words and phrases – "in specie distribution", "managed investment scheme", "responsible entity", "return of capital".

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – ss 9, 124, 231, 601FB(1), 601FC, Ch 5C.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – ss 21–23.

Trusts Act 1973 (Q) – s 33(1)(l).

Western Australia v Brown [2014] HCA 8

88 ALJR 461; 306 ALR 168
French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel, Gageler, Keane JJ
Date: 12 Mar 2014 Case Number: P49/2013
Native title – Native title rights in relation to land – Agreement made in 1964 between State of Western Australia and joint venturers to develop iron ore deposits at Mount Goldsworthy – Mineral leases for iron ore granted pursuant to agreement – Joint venturers required under agreement to give State and third parties access to land subject of mineral leases provided such access did not unduly prejudice or interfere with joint venturers' operations – Whether mineral leases granted joint venturers right of exclusive possession – Whether joint venturers' rights under mineral leases inconsistent with claimed native title rights and interests – Whether claimed native title rights and interests extinguished by actual or potential conflicting use or development of land by joint venturers subsequent to grant of mineral leases.

Words and phrases – "exclusive possession", "extinguishment", "inconsistency of rights".

Iron Ore (Mount Goldsworthy) Agreement Act 1964 (WA) – Schedule.

Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28

213 CLR 1; 76 ALJR 1098; 191 ALR 1
Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan JJ
Date: 8 Aug 2002 Case Number: P59/2000 P62/2000 P63/2000 P67/2000
Aboriginals – Native title to land – Extinguishment – Extinguishment by grant of interest in land – Inconsistency between native title rights and interests and rights and interests under allegedly extinguishing grants – Adverse dominion test rejected.

Aboriginals – Native title to land – Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) – Previous exclusive possession acts – Previous non-exclusive possession acts – Past acts – Intermediate past acts – Public works.

Appeal – Federal Court of Australia – Nature of appeal – Rehearing – Principles applicable.

Aboriginals – Native title to land – Extinguishment – Partial extinguishment – Suspension of native title rights and interests – Partial extinguishment and suspension under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Aboriginals – Native title to land – Extinguishment – Crown lands – Particular kinds of transactions respecting Crown lands – Pastoral lease under Land Acts of Western Australia – Mining lease under Mining Acts of Western Australia – Reserves – Special purposes lease – Special lease – Resumption of land under the Land Act 1933 (WA) and Public Works Act 1902 (WA) – Grant to occupy land – Grant of leased reserve – Vacant Crown land.

Aboriginals – Native title to land – Validity of past acts – Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) – Inconsistency of State law authorising grant of interest in land.

Aboriginals – Native title to land – Rights in relation to land or waters – Cultural knowledge.

Constitutional law (Cth) – Territories – Relationship between Commonwealth and Territory laws.

Words and phrases –"past acts", "intermediate period acts", "exclusive possession", "previous exclusive possession acts", "previous non-exclusive possession acts", "non-exclusive pastoral leases", "public works", "works", "category A past act", "category B past act", "category C past act".

Australian Waste Lands Act 1855 (Imp) – s 7.

Western Australia Constitution Act 1890 (Imp) – s 3.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – ss 24, 27.

Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) – Pt 1, Pt 2 Div 1 (ss 11, 14, 15, 16, 19), Pt 2 Div 2 (ss 17, 20), Pt 2 Div 2A, Pt 2 Div 2B (ss 23B, 23C, 23E, 23F, 23G, 23J), Pt 2 Div 4 (s 45), Pt 2 Div 5, ss 223, 225, 226, 228, 231, 238, 242, 245, 248A, 248B.

Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth).

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
– ss 9, 10.

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA).

Land Act 1898 (WA)
– Pt I (ss 3, 4, 15, 16, 32, 33), Pt III, Pt V (s 62), Pt VI, Pt VII, Pt VIII, Pt IX, Pt X (ss 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 102, 104, 106, 107), Pt XI, Pt XII (ss 135, 138, 142, 143, 144, 150, 151, 154).

Land Act Amendment Act 1905 (WA) – s 10.

Land Act 1933 (WA) – Pt I (ss 3, 7, 11, 13), Pt III (ss 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34), Pt V Div 1, Pt V Div 2, Pt V Div 3, Pt V Div 4, Pt VI (ss 106, 109), Pt VII, Pt IX (ss 162, 163, 164).

Mining Act 1904 (WA) – ss 117, 122, 123.

Mining Act 1978 (WA) – s 8, Pt III Div 3 (ss 29, 35), Pt IV Div 3 (ss 71, 73, 78, 82, 85), Pt IV Div 4, ss 113, 123.

Public Works Act 1902 (WA) – ss 18, 34.

Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) – ss 2, 3, 4.

Titles Validation Act 1995 (WA).

Titles Validation Amendment Act 1999 (WA).

Titles (Validation) and Native Title (Effect of Past Acts) Act 1995 (WA)
– Pt 2 (ss 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11), Pt 2A (s 12A), Pt 2B (ss 12I, 12J, 12K, 12L, 12M, 12N, 12O, 12P).

Titles (Validation) and Native Title (Effect of Past Acts) Amendment Act 1999 (WA).

Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA)
– ss 6, 23.

Validation (Native Title) Act 1994 (NT) – Pt 1 (ss 3, 3A, 3B), Pt 2 (ss 4, 4A, 4C), Pt 3 (ss 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), Pt 3C (ss 9L, 9M), Pt 4 (s 10), Pt 5 (s 11).

Western Australian Planning Commission v Southregal Pty Ltd [2017] HCA 7

Kiefel, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJ
Date: 8 Feb 2017 Case Number: P47/2016 P48/2016
Town planning (WA) – Compensation – Where land reserved for public purpose under planning scheme – Where s 173 of Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) makes provision for landowner to be compensated where land injuriously affected by making or amendment of planning scheme – Where, under s 177, compensation not payable until land first sold after reservation or responsible authority refuses development application or grants application on unacceptable conditions – Where landowners purchased land affected by planning scheme after date of reservation – Where purchasers applied to develop land and were refused – Whether purchasers entitled to compensation.

Words and phrases – "compensation", "injurious affection", "planning scheme", "reservation".

Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 (WA) – s 36.

Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) – ss 171, 173, 174, 176, 177.

Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA) – ss 11, 12.

Western Australian Planning Commission v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 63

221 CLR 30; 79 ALJR 414; 211 ALR 472
McHugh, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon JJ
Date: 9 Dec 2004 Case Number: P90/2003
Town Planning (WA) – Statutory right to compensation conferred upon any person whose land or property was injuriously affected by the making of a specified planning scheme – Land injuriously affected by making of scheme not owned by respondent at time scheme was made but subsequently owned by respondent – Whether right to compensation passed with the land – Whether respondent had a statutory right to compensation.

Town Planning (WA) – Subdivision of land – Application for subdivision approval – Progressive subdivision of larger area – Town planning authority granted subdivision approval subject to a condition that a portion of the larger area be vested in the Crown free of cost and without any payment of compensation by the Crown – Whether condition imposed for a proper "planning purpose" – Whether condition fairly and reasonably related to the development permitted – Whether condition validly imposed.

Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA) – ss 11, 20, 20A.

Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 (WA) – ss 3, 5, 36.

Now Showing items 1 to 20   Next Page

Back to the top