Commonwealth of Australia v. AJL20
Case No.
C16/2020, C17/2020
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Chapter III – Immigration detention – Where second respondent citizen of Syria and granted visa in 2005 – Where Minister for Immigration and Border Protection cancelled visa on character grounds in 2014 under s 501(2) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“Act”) – Where second respondent detained by officer of Commonwealth from 8 October 2014 under s 189(1) of Act – Where Minister accepted Australia has non-refoulement obligations to second respondent – Where Minister refused to grant protection visa and declined to consider granting visa under s 195A of Act on 25 July 2019 – Where detention of unlawful non-citizen lawful if for permissible purpose – Where removal from Australia permissible purpose – Where, from 26 July 2019, officer of Commonwealth obliged to remove second respondent from Australia “as soon as reasonably practicable” under s 198 of Act – Where primary judge held detention unlawful since 26 July 2019 and ordered second respondent be released from detention – Whether second respondent’s removal from Australia “reasonably practicable” – Whether second respondent’s detention for purpose of removal from Australia – Whether second respondent’s detention lawful – Whether ss 189 and 196 require detention of unlawful non-citizen until removal from Australia despite non-compliance with duty of removal consistently with Ch III of Constitution.
Torts – False imprisonment – Whether second respondent falsely imprisoned.
Documents
17/12/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
21/12/2020 Causes Removed from Federal Court of Australia
19/02/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
19/02/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
12/03/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
26/03/2021 Reply
13/04/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
13/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
23/06/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v. Voller
Nationwide News Pty Limited v. Voller
Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v. Voller
Case No.
S236/2020, S237/2020, S238/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
01/06/2020 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Basten & Meagher JJA, Simpson AJA)
Catchwords
Defamation – Publication – Where applicants created and operated public Facebook pages on which Facebook users can view and comment on items posted – Where Facebook users posted comments on applicants’ Facebook posts – Where respondent commenced defamation proceedings against applicants – Where primary judge determined separate question – Where NSW Court of Appeal dismissed appeal from determination – Whether intention to communicate defamatory material is necessary for person to be “publisher” – Whether operators of Facebook pages “publish” third-party comments posted on page prior to being aware of comments.
Documents
08/12/2020 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
21/12/2020 Notices of appeal
17/02/2021 Written submissions (Appellants - joint)
17/02/2021 Chronology (Appellants - joint)
17/03/2021 Written submissions (Respondent - joint)
07/04/2021 Reply
18/05/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
18/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellants - joint)
18/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent - joint)
08/09/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Edwards v. The Queen
Case No.
S235/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
03/04/2020 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Leeming JA, Johnson & Harrison JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Prosecution’s duty of disclosure – Unreasonable verdict – Where applicant charged with sexual offences against child – Where applicant’s mobile phone seized and contents downloaded – Where prosecution disclosed existence of download and offered to provide applicant with copy of downloaded data – Where data was not provided to applicant – Where prosecution did not disclose relevance of download data – Where prosecution case on two counts relied on evidence of complainant – Where defence case on same counts relied on documentary evidence contradicting complainant’s evidence – Where NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (“CCA”) dismissed appeal against conviction –Whether prosecutor breached duty of disclosure by not providing download data to applicant, contrary to s 142 of Criminal Procedure Act 1987 (NSW) – Whether CCA erred in concluding verdicts on two counts not unreasonable as there remained reasonable doubt as to existence of opportunity for offending to have occurred.
Documents
08/12/2020 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
18/12/2020 Notice of appeal
05/02/2021 Written submissions (Appellant - further redacted)
05/02/2021 Chronology (Appellant - further redacted)
08/03/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
17/03/2021 Reply
19/05/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
19/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
19/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
06/10/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
WorkPac Pty Ltd v. Rossato & Ors
Case No.
B73/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
20/05/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Bromberg, White & Wheelahan JJ)
Catchwords
Industrial law – Characterisation as “casual employee” – Restitution – Where Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) contains National Employment Standards (NES) – Where NES provide that permanent employees entitled to certain leave entitlements – Where first respondent employed under contract describing him as “casual employee” – Where first respondent employed for indefinite period with regular and predictable shifts – Where first respondent’s hours set far in advance and where he was not given option to elect not to work particular shifts – Where first respondent paid casual loading in lieu of leave entitlements – Where applicant sought declarations that respondent not entitled to leave – Where Full Court of Federal Court dismissed application – Whether respondent is a “casual employee” for the purposes of Fair Work Act or enterprise agreement – If not, whether applicant is entitled to apply casual loading paid to first respondent in satisfaction of his leave entitlements by way of set-off, restitution or by reg 2.03A of Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth).
Documents
26/11/2020 Determination (SLA, Sydney video connection Melbourne)
10/12/2020 Notice of appeal
21/01/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
21/01/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
12/02/2021 Written submissions (Second respondent)
18/02/2021 Written submissions (First respondent)
18/02/2021 Written submissions (Third respondent)
18/02/2021 Written submissions (Fourth respondent)
11/03/2021 Reply
12/05/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
12/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (First respondent)
12/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Second respondent)
13/05/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Third respondent)
13/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Fourth respondent)
04/08/2021 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
Chetcuti v. Commonwealth of Australia
Case No.
M122/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
26/11/2020 High Court of Australia (Nettle J)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Legislative power – Naturalisation and aliens – Where appellant entered Australia in 1948 – Where appellant was born in Malta and entered Australia as British subject – Where appellant became citizen of United Kingdom and Colonies in 1949 and citizen of Malta on 1961 – Whether within power of Commonwealth Parliament to treat appellant as alien within s 51(xix) of Constitution – Whether within power of Parliament to specify criteria for alienage – Whether appellant entered Australia as alien.
Documents
10/12/2020 Notice of appeal
05/03/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
05/03/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
02/04/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
15/04/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
22/04/2021 Written submissions (Respondent, in reply to intervener's submissions)
29/04/2021 Reply
11/05/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
11/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
11/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
12/08/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)