Judgments, ordered by date

Browsing By Year (2019)

Now Showing items 7 to 8  Previous Page  


Work Health Authority v Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 2

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 6 Feb 2019 Case Number: D4/2018
Constitutional law (Cth) – Powers of Commonwealth Parliament – Territories – Inconsistency between Commonwealth and Territory laws – Where Commonwealth civil aviation law regulates matters preparatory to and subsequent to aircraft flight including embarkation and disembarkation of passengers – Where Commonwealth law implements and extends international obligations designed to achieve uniformity in regulation of civil aviation – Where Territory law regulates work health and safety – Whether Commonwealth law designed to operate within framework of other State, Territory and Commonwealth laws – Whether Commonwealth law contains implicit negative proposition that it is only law with respect to safety of persons affected by operations of aircraft including embarkation – Whether Territory law inconsistent with Commonwealth law.

Words and phrases – "alter, impair or detract from", "anti-exclusivity clause", "Chicago Convention", "civil aviation", "cover the field", "embarkation", "implicit negative proposition", "indirect inconsistency", "intention to deal completely, exhaustively or exclusively", "legislative intention", "nationally harmonised laws", "operations associated with aircraft", "rule of conduct", "safety standards", "subject matter".

Constitution – ss 109, 122.

Air Navigation Act 1920 (Cth).

Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth)
– ss 3, 3A, 9, 11, 20A, 27, 28BA, 28BD, 28BE, 29, 98. Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth), regs 2, 215, 235.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – s 4C.

Northern Territory (Self –Government) Act 1978 (Cth), s 6.

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth).

Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT)
– ss 19, 27, 32.

Unions NSW v New South Wales [2019] HCA 1

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ
Date: 29 Jan 2019 Case Number: S204/2018
Constitutional law (Cth) – Implied freedom of communication on governmental and political matters – Where s 29(10) of Electoral Funding Act 2018 (NSW) ("EF Act") substantially reduced cap on electoral expenditure applicable to third-party campaigners from cap applicable under previous legislation – Where third-party campaigners subject to substantially lower cap than political parties – Where s 35 of EF Act prohibits third-party campaigner from acting in concert with another person to incur electoral expenditure exceeding cap – Where preparatory materials to EF Act recommended reduction in cap for various reasons, including that third parties should not be able to "drown out" political parties, which should have a "privileged position" in election campaigns – Where subsequent parliamentary committee report recommended that, before reducing cap, government consider whether proposed reduced cap would enable third-party campaigners reasonably to present their case – Where no evidence that such consideration was undertaken – Whether s 29(10) enacted for purpose compatible with maintenance of constitutionally prescribed system of representative government – Whether s 29(10) necessary to achieve that purpose – Whether necessary to decide validity of s 35.

Words and phrases – "capped expenditure period", "compatible with maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative government", "deference to Parliament", "domain of selections", "domain of the legislative discretion", "effect of the law", "electoral expenditure", "expenditure cap", "justified", "legislative purpose", "legitimate purpose", "level playing field", "marginalise", "margin of appreciation", "necessity", "reasonably appropriate and adapted", "third-party campaigner".

Constitution – ss 7, 24.

Electoral Funding Act 2018 (NSW) – ss 3, 29, 33, 35.

Election Funding – Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW), ss 4, 4A, 95F.

Now Showing items 7 to 8  Previous Page  

Back to the top