Esso Australia Pty Ltd v. The Australian Workers' Union
The Australian Workers' Union v. Esso Australia Pty Ltd
Case No.
M185/2016; M187/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
25/05/2016 Federal Court of Australia (Siopis J, Buchanan J, Bromberg J)
Catchwords
Industrial Law – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – Construction of s 413(5) – Where s 413(5) requires that certain persons “must not have contravened any orders that apply to them” for industrial action to be protected – Whether under s 413(5) the contravention must be at the relevant time – Whether under s 413(5) the order must be operative.
Industrial Law – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – Construction of ss 343 and 348 – Where sections prevent actions being taken against another person “with intent to coerce” the other person to take or not take industrial action – Whether sections require knowledge that action was unlawful.
Documents
16/12/2016 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
23/12/2016 Notice of appeal
23/12/2016 Notice of contention (Respondent - AWU)
27/01/2017 Written submissions (Appellant - Esso)
27/01/2017 Written submissions (Appellant - AWU)
27/01/2017 Chronology (Appellant - Esso)
27/01/2017 Chronology (Appellant - AWU)
17/02/2017 Written submissions (Respondent - Esso)
17/02/2017 Written submissions (Respondent - AWU)
03/03/2017 Reply (Appellant - Esso)
03/03/2017 Reply (Appellant - AWU)
10/08/2017 Hearing - Esso, Hearing - AWU (Full Court, Brisbane)
06/12/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Plaintiff S195/2016 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Cth) & Ors
Case No.
S195/2016
Case Information
Catchwords
Migration – Where plaintiff is citizen of Iran – Where plaintiff was an “unauthorised maritime arrival” – Where plaintiff is unwilling to return to Iran - Where plaintiff was sent to Papua New Guinea under regional processing arrangements – Where Papua New Guinea Supreme Court handed down Belden Norman Namah, MP Leader of the Opposition v Hon Rimbank Pato, Minister for Foreign Affairs & Immigrations SCA NO 84 of 2013 (“Namah Decision”) – Whether designation of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country is beyond power of s 198AB(1) of Migration Act by reason of Namah Decision – Was taking of the plaintiff to Papua New Guinea beyond power of s 198AD of Migration by reason of Namah Decision.
Documents
05/08/2016 Application for an order to show cause
18/10/2016 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff )
20/10/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
15/11/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
07/12/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra v/link to Sydney)
21/12/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link to Sydney)
14/03/2017 Special case
21/03/2017 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
21/03/2017 Chronology
07/04/2017 Written submissions (First and Second Defendants)
10/04/2017 Chronology (First and Second Defendants)
21/04/2017 Written submissions (Third Defendant)
21/04/2017 Chronology (Third Defendant)
28/04/2017 Reply
09/05/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
17/08/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Brown & Anor v. The State of Tasmania
Case No.
H3/2016
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional Law – Implied freedom of political communication – Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014 (Tas) – Where Forestry Tasmania was authorised to undertake forestry operations in the Lapoinya Forest – Where plaintiffs protested against forestry operations in vicinity of the operations – Where plaintiffs were charged on separate occasions for breaching s 8 of the Act – Where charges were dismissed against both plaintiffs – Whether plaintiffs have standing – Whether Act impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication.
Documents
09/03/2016 Writ of summons
14/04/2016 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiffs)
07/07/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
14/11/2016 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Hobart)
09/12/2016 Special case stated
13/12/2016 Order by consent referring special case stated to the Full Court
27/02/2017 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
27/02/2017 Chronology
08/03/2017 Written submissions (Human Rights Law Centre seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae)
21/03/2017 Written submissions (Defendant)
27/03/2017 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
28/03/2017 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
28/03/2017 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
28/03/2017 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
28/03/2017 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
11/04/2017 Reply (Plaintiffs)
02/05/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
03/05/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
18/10/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Aubrey v. The Queen
Case No.
S274/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/12/2015 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Gleeson JA, Button J, Fagan J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Statutory construction – Crimes Act 1900(NSW) – Where it was alleged by prosecution that appellant transmitted HIV to complainant by consensual intercourse – Where appellant was convicted of maliciously inflicted grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 35(1)(b) of Crimes Act 1990 (NSW) – Where jury acquitted appellant on principle count of maliciously causing the complainant to contract a grievous bodily disease with intent to cause that result, contrary to s 36 of Crimes Act 1900 – Whether “intent” requires the application of force.
Documents
16/11/2016 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
30/11/2016 Notice of appeal
21/12/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)
21/12/2016 Chronology (Appellant)
20/01/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/01/2016 Amended notice of appeal
30/01/2017 Reply
03/02/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/05/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Ecosse Property Holdings Pty Ltd v. Gee Dee Nominees Pty Ltd
Date: 14 December 2016
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1h 09m
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.