Queanbeyan City Council v. ACTEW Corporation Ltd and Anor
Case Nos.
C2/2011; C3/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/11/2010 Federal Court of Australia (Keane CJ, Stone and Perram JJ)
Catchwords
Constitutional law — Duties of excise — Water abstraction charge ("WAC") imposed by Ministerial determination — WAC calculated by reference to quantum abstracted — Whether discernible relationship to value of acquisition necessary for governmental levy for access to and acquisition of natural resource to escape characterisation as a tax — If discernible relationship required, whether requirement satisfied where government charges any rate borne by market, including monopoly rent — Evidence required to establish absence of discernible relationship between charge and value of acquired resource — Water Resources Act 2007 (ACT).
Constitutional law — Duties of excise — Utilities Network Facilities Tax ("UNFT") imposed on owners of network facilities — UNFT calculated by reference to "route length" of network facility — Whether fee said to be for exercise of legislative power authorising utilities to trespass on land a fee for service and therefore not a tax — Whether following factors sufficient to establish that a levy on network facilities not an excise: UNFT payable by owner, rather than operator, of network; UNFT imposed by reference to conferral of right to use and occupy land on which facility located; quantum of tax referable to length land occupied; quantum of UNFT not explicable only on basis of quantity and value of water supplied by respondent; payment of fee not a condition on transportation of water; UNFT does not select water network for discrimination so as to warrant conclusion that tax upon water carried in network — Utilities (Network Facilities Tax) Act 2006 (ACT).
Practice and procedure — Precedents — Decisions of High Court of Australia ("HCA") — Binding effect on other courts — Whether intermediate appellate court may depart from dicta of justices of HCA, subsequently approved by other justices of HCA, where no decision of HCA has disagreed with those dicta.
Documents
08/04/2011 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
21/04/2011 Notice of appeal
21/04/2011 Notice of constitutional matter (Appellant)
10/05/2011 Written submissions (Appellant C2/2011)
10/05/2011 Chronology (Appellant C2/2011)
10/05/2011 Written submissions (Appellant C3/2011)
10/05/2011 Chronology (Appellant C3/2011)
31/05/2011 Written submissions (First Respondent C2/2011)
31/05/2011 Written submissions (First Respondent C3/2011)
31/05/2011 Written submissions (Second Respondent C2/2011)
31/05/2011 Written submissions (Second Respondent C3/2011)
06/06/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for New South Wales intervening)
06/06/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for South Australia intervening)
06/06/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for Victoria intervening C2/2011)
06/06/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for Victoria intervening C3/2011)
07/06/2011 Reply (C2/2011)
07/06/2011 Reply (C3/2011)
07/06/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening C2/2011)
07/06/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening C3/2011)
07/06/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for Western Australia intervening C2/2011)
07/06/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for Western Australia intervening C3/2011)
07/06/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of Queensland intervening)
17/06/2011 Written submissions in reply to the intervenors (First Respondent)
21/06/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/10/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Moti v. The Queen
Case No.
B19/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/07/2010 Supreme Court of Queensland (Holmes, Muir and Fraser JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Procedure — Stay of proceedings — Abuse of process — Indictment charging applicant with seven counts of engaging in sexual intercourse with person under 16 whilst outside Australia stayed by primary judge — Where primary judge found financial support given to witnesses by Australian Federal Police an abuse of process — Whether open to conclude that prosecution based on evidence of witnesses paid by Australian Executive, in amounts alleged to exceed expenses of giving evidence and in response to alleged threats to withdraw from prosecution, an abuse of process — Whether stay of proceedings should be set aside.
Criminal law — Procedure — Stay of proceedings — Abuse of process — Where applicant deported from Solomon Islands to Australia without extradition proceedings and allegedly with "knowledge and connivance or involvement" of Australian Executive — Where applicant previously charged with similar offences in Vanuatu but discharged — Where applicant contended removal from Solomon Islands a disguised extradition and criminal investigation politically motivated — Whether principle in R v Horseferry Magistrates' Court; Ex Parte Bennett (No 1) [1994] 1 AC 42 should be applied in Australia — Whether discretion to stay proceedings as abuse of process in light of facts and applicant's allegations ought to be exercised.
Documents
08/04/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
20/04/2011 Notice of appeal
06/05/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
06/05/2011 Chronology
06/06/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
06/06/2011 Chronology (Respondent)
14/06/2011 Reply
03/08/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
04/08/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/12/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Mahmud v. The Queen
Case No.
S137/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
24/09/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal)(Giles JA, Hulme J, Latham J)
Catchwords
Court of Criminal Appeal held that sentences were manifestly inadequate - Division 1, Part 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 should have been taken into account.
Documents
13/04/2011 Application for special leave to appeal
18/04/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
09/05/2011 Written submissions (Applicant)
09/05/2011 Chronology
17/05/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/05/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
23/05/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for Western Australia intervening)
23/05/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for New South Wales intervening)
23/05/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for South Australia intervening)
27/05/2011 Reply and reply to intervenors
08/06/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Special leave refused see transcript)
Muldrock v. The Queen
Case No.
S121/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
14/05/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal)(McClellan CJ, Howie J and Harrison J)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Sentence — Applicant pleaded guilty to charge of sexual intercourse with child under age of 10 years — Further offence of aggravated indecent assault taken into account in sentencing — Applicant intellectually disabled — Applicant previously convicted of similar offence — Relevance of standard non-parole period in cases of less than mid-range seriousness — Whether applicant "significantly intellectually disabled" such that deterrence objective inappropriate — Whether full-time custody an exceptional penalty for intellectually disabled offenders — Relevance of rehabilitation and community protection to sentencing of intellectually disabled offenders — Whether applicant a person with "special circumstances" — Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61M(1), 66A — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 54A, 54B.
Words and phrases — "significantly intellectually disabled", "special circumstances".
Documents
11/03/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
25/03/2011 Notice of appeal
08/04/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/04/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
03/05/2011 Written Submissions (Respondent)
16/05/2011 Reply
08/06/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
09/06/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/10/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Cumerlong Holdings Pty Ltd v. Dalcross Properties Pty Ltd and Ors
Case No.
S120/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
9/09/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)
Catchwords
Environment and planning — Building control — Planning instruments — Interpretation — Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan 194 ("LEP 194") rezoned applicant's land — Whether LEP 194 a "provision", for purpose of s 28(3) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) ("the Act"), that accords with s 28(2) of the Act — Whether s 28(3) of the Act required approval of Governor to effect change of zoning under LEP 194 — Whether s 28(3) of the Act engaged if LEP 194 contains no express provision identifying regulatory instrument which shall not apply to any particular development.
Words and phrases — "provide", "provision".
Documents
11/03/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
25/03/2011 Notice of appeal
30/03/2011 Submitting appearance (First and second respondents)
08/04/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/04/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
06/05/2011 Written submissions (Third respondent)
16/05/2011 Written submissions
(Minister for Planning and Infrastructure - Seeking leave to intervene)
01/06/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
03/08/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)