Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v. Moorcroft
Case No.
B66/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/03/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Collier J)
Catchwords
Migration law – Removal and deportation – Where s 5(1) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) relevantly provided that person who had “been removed or deported from Australia or removed or deported from another country” was “behaviour concern non-citizen” – Where respondent held special category visa – Where that visa purportedly cancelled, and respondent detained and removed from Australia to New Zealand – Where, by consent, Federal Circuit Court quashed cancellation decision – Where respondent returned to Australia and was interviewed by Minister’s delegate at airport on arrival – Where delegate asked whether she had ever been removed, deported, or excluded from any country, including Australia – Where respondent answered yes, and explained circumstances of earlier removal – Where delegate refused to grant respondent special category visa, not being satisfied that the respondent had not been “removed … from Australia” within meaning of definition of “behaviour concern non-citizen” – Where Federal Circuit Court dismissed respondent’s application for judicial review of delegate’s decision – Where Federal Court allowed appeal from Circuit Court’s decision – Whether “removed or deported from” means taken out of some country by or on behalf of government of that country in fact, or whether it means being taken out of some country validly or lawfully, or whether it bears different meanings in same section, namely, valid or lawful removal or deportation in case of ejection from Australia, and removal or deportation in fact in case of other countries.
Documents
16/10/2020 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
30/10/2020 Notice of appeal
04/12/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
04/12/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
15/01/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
05/02/2021 Reply
15/04/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
15/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
15/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
16/06/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Talacko v. Talacko & Ors
Case No.
M111/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/04/2020 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Beach, McLeish and Niall JJA)
27/06/2017 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Beach, McLeish JJA and Keogh AJA)
07/12/2018 Supreme Court of Victoria (McDonald J)
20/12/2018 Supreme Court of Victoria (McDonald J)
Catchwords
Torts – Unlawful means conspiracy – Loss of chance – Where, in context of long dispute over properties in Prague, Slovakia, and Dresden, some of the respondents commenced proceedings in Supreme Court of Victoria alleging that applicant and members of her immediate family engaged in unlawful means conspiracy by executing donation agreements which purported to put certain interests in properties beyond reach of respondents – Where Supreme Court held that three of four elements of unlawful means conspiracy made out, but that pecuniary loss not established – Where Court of Appeal allowed appeal against that decision – Whether reduction in chance to recover judgment debt, where that debt may yet be recovered, can constitute pecuniary loss sufficient to complete cause of action – Whether expenses incurred by one party in foreign proceedings can constitute pecuniary loss sufficient to complete cause of action in circumstances where foreign proceedings ongoing and where foreign court may order that party to bear its own expenses.
Documents
16/10/2020 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
22/10/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
29/10/2020 Notice of appeal
27/11/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
27/11/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
15/01/2021 Written submissions (First respondent)
15/01/2021 Written submissions (Second to fifth respondents)
05/02/2021 Reply (to first respondent)
05/02/2021 Reply (to second to fifth respondents)
10/03/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
10/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
10/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (Second to fifth respondents)
12/05/2021 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
Namoa v. The Queen
Case No.
S188/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
06/04/2020 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Payne JA, Johnson and Davies JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Conspiracy between married persons – Relationship between common law and Schedule (“Criminal Code”) to Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – Where applicant tried jointly with another on one count of conspiring to do acts in preparation for terrorist act or acts, contrary to ss 11.5 and 101.6 of Criminal Code – Where prior to trial, trial judge rejected application for permanent stay on basis that applicant and co-accused were married – Where applicant and co-accused convicted – Where NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (“CCA”) dismissed appeal against conviction – Whether immediately prior to enactment of Criminal Code, it was part of common law of Australia that married persons could not commit criminal conspiracy – If so, whether that principle remains part of common law – Whether CCA entitled to depart from Privy Council decisions on principles of common law which preceded passage of Australia Acts in 1986 – Whether Criminal Code expressly or impliedly ousts common law rule as to conspiracy between married persons.
Documents
13/10/2020 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne v/connection Brisbane)
27/10/2020 Notice of appeal
01/12/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/12/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
12/01/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
15/02/2021 Reply
11/03/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
11/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
14/04/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
BNB17 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Case No.
M109/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
12/03/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Anderson J)
Catchwords
Migration law – Fast track review process – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Pt 7AA – Where applicant applied for Safe Haven Enterprise Visa on basis that he feared serious or significant harm due to imputed support for Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – Where Minister’s delegate refused application – Where applicant contended interview conducted by delegate affected by material translation errors – Where, on review, Immigration Assessment Authority (“IAA”) affirmed delegate’s decision – Where Federal Circuit Court dismissed application for judicial review – Where appeal to Federal Court dismissed – Whether alleged translation errors in initial interview had consequence that IAA could not perform its function of considering “review material” – Whether, when on notice of alleged translation errors, it was legally unreasonable for IAA to fail to mould its procedures to cure effect of alleged errors by using power in s 473DC to get new information or taking any other step – Whether, when on notice of alleged translation errors, it was legally unreasonable for IAA to make adverse credibility findings relying on aspects of applicant’s evidence allegedly affected by errors.
Documents
08/10/2020 Determination (SLA, Melbourne)
22/10/2020 Notice of appeal
26/11/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
26/11/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
24/12/2020 Written submissions (First respondent)
19/01/2021 Reply
10/02/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/02/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
10/02/2021 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
14/04/2021 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
Sunland Group Limited & Anor v. Gold Coast City Council
Case No.
B64/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
01/05/2020 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Sofronoff P, Philippides and McMurdo JJA)
Catchwords
Administrative law – Planning and environment – Development approvals – Where in 2015 second applicant bought parcel of undeveloped land which carried with it benefit of preliminary development approval granted in 2007 – Where preliminary approval approved multi-stage residential development subject to 56 conditions – Where some conditions provided for payment of infrastructure contributions to respondent – Where preliminary approval made under Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld) – Where Integrated Planning Act replaced by other legislation – Whether conditions concerning infrastructure contributions, properly construed, should be read as binding on applicant or landowner, or merely as statements as to scope of future possible conditions – Whether, in construction of conditions, contra proferentem rule applies so that ambiguities are to be resolved against approving authority.
Documents*
13/10/2020 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne with video-connection to Brisbane)
22/10/2020 Notice of appeal
01/12/2020 Written submissions (Appellants)
01/12/2020 Chronology (Appellants)
14/01/2021 Written submissions - amended (Respondent)
02/02/2021 Reply
09/04/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
09/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
09/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
05/08/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/11/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)