Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v. Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union & Anor
Case No.
M65/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
21/12/2016 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, North J, Jessup J)
Catchwords
Industrial law – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – Where respondents admitted contravention of s 348 of the Act – Where pecuniary penalties imposed on respondents – Where primary judge ordered first respondent not to indemnify second respondent against penalties – Where Full Federal Court set aside order on basis that Court had no power to make such order – Whether Federal Court has power to order party not to indemnify another party in respect of pecuniary penalty order made under s 546.
Documents
12/05/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
25/05/2017 Notice of appeal
16/06/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
16/06/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
07/07/2017 Written submissions (Respondents)
21/07/2017 Reply
05/09/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Melbourne) - VACATED
17/10/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/02/2018 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd v. Vadasz & Ors
Case No.
A17/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
8/02/2017 Supreme Court of South Australia (Blue J, Lovell J & Hinton J)
Catchwords
Jurisdiction – Error of law on face of record – Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA) – Where adjudicator made determination that amount be paid by appellant – Where appellant sought judicial review of determination – Where Full Court considered it was required by Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89 to follow Shade Systems Pty Ltd v Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 379 (“Probuild”) – Whether Full Court erred in following Probuild and concluding that Act excluded judicial review on ground of error of law on face of record – Whether Full Court erred in holding that error of law in application of s 12 did not amount to jurisdictional error – Whether Full Court erred in holding that, if error enlivened Court’s jurisdiction to grant certiorari, appropriate order would be to partially set aside but partially preserve determination.
Documents
12/05/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
26/05/2017 Notice of appeal
16/06/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
16/06/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
07/07/2017 Written submissions (First Respondent)
21/07/2017 Reply
09/11/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/02/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Plaintiff M174/2016 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Case No.
M174/2016
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Migration – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 57(2), 473CA, 473CC –Where plaintiff applied for Temporary Protection (Class XD) (Subclass 785) visa – Where delegate of Minister refused to grant visa – Whether delegate failed to comply with s 57(2) of Act – If so, whether failure to comply with s 57(2) had consequence that there was no decision capable of referral to Immigration Assessment Authority under s 473CA or essential precondition for valid exercise of power by Authority under s 473CC not satisfied – Whether Authority failed to conduct review in accordance with Pt 7AA by unreasonably failing to exercise statutory powers to obtain or consider new information.
Documents
20/12/2016 Application for an order to show cause
04/01/2017 Submitting appearance (Second Defendant)
16/02/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
22/02/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
05/05/2017 Amended Application for an order to show cause
09/05/2017 Special case stated
17/05/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
23/06/2017 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
23/06/2017 Chronology (Plaintiff)
31/07/2017 Written submissions (First Defendant)
14/08/2017 Reply
07/12/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
18/04/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Woollahra Municipal Council v. Minister for Local Government & Ors
Case No.
S141/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
22/12/2016 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bathurst CJ, Beazley P, Ward JA)
Catchwords
Administrative law – Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) – Where Minister made proposal under s 218E(1) for forced amalgamation of Woollahra, Waverley and Randwick local government areas – Where Government published document disclosing part of analysis by KPMG – Where Delegate heard evidence in secret from KPMG – Whether obligation to hold inquiry under s 263(2A) did not permit evidence to be heard in secret and not disclosed to public – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that no prescribed inquiry at which there was examination of required statutory factors had been held – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that requirement to inquire into financial advantages and disadvantages of proposed amalgamation not discharged without having regard to specific financial advantages and disadvantages to residents and ratepayers of each local government area.
Documents
12/05/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
19/05/2017 Notice of appeal
16/06/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
16/06/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
23/06/2017 Written submissions (Randwick City Council seeking leave to intervene)
07/07/2017 Written submissions (First Respondent)
21/07/2017 Reply
20/10/2017 Summons
26/10/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
29/11/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney) - Special leave revoked
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Transport Accident Commission v. Katanas
Date: 11 May 2017
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1h 43m
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
Terms of use
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.