Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v. CED16 & Anor

Case No.

S347/2019

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

25/09/2018 Federal Court of Australia (Derrington J)

[2018] FCA 1451

Catchwords

Migration law – Protection visa – Where first respondent’s application for Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (Class XE Subclass 790) refused and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (“Minister”) purported to certify that disclosure of information in Identity Assessment Form could form basis for claim of Public Interest Immunity by Crown – Whether certificate issued by Minister purportedly pursuant to s 473GB(5) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) comprised ‘new information’ as defined in s 473DC(1) of Act – Whether Immigration Assessment Authority (“IAA”) was required to turn its mind, or show that it had turned its mind, to whether it was required to give particulars of information in certificate itself to first respondent pursuant to s 473DE(1) of Act.

Documents

13/12/2019 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link to Sydney)

20/12/2019 Notice of appeal

10/02/2020 Written submissions (Appellant - Amended)

31/01/2020 Chronology (Appellant)

27/02/2020 Written submissions (First Respondent)

20/03/2020 Reply

09/06/2020 Hearing (Full Court)

09/06/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)

09/06/2020 Outline of oral argument (First respondent)

30/06/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v. AMWU & Ors
Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations v. AMWU & Ors

Case No.

M160/2019 and M165/2019

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

21/08/2019 Federal Court of Australia (Bromberg J, Rangiah J, O'Callaghan J)

[2019] FCAFC 138

Catchwords

Employment law – Where Mondelez operates food manufacturing plants – Where certain employees work in 12-hour shifts – Where entitlement to paid personal/carer’s leave under Enterprise Agreement – Where Mondelez deducts 12 hours from accrued paid personal/carer’s leave balance when such leave taken for single 12-hour shift – Whether majority of Full Court erred by holding that "day" in s 96(1) of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) means "the portion of a 24 hour period that would otherwise be allotted to work" rather than an average working day calculated as employee’s average daily ordinary hours of work based on standard five-day working week – Whether Full Court erred in construing s 96(1) as entitling national system employees (other than casuals) to paid personal/carer's leave equivalent to 10 ‘working’ days (of whatever duration would have been worked on day in question) per year of service.

Short Particulars

Documents*

13/12/2019 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Melbourne)

18/12/2019 Notice of appeal (Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd)

23/12/2019 Notice of appeal (Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations)

31/01/2020 Written submissions (Appellant - M160/2019)

31/01/2020 Chronology (Appellant - M160/2019)

31/01/2020 Written submissions (Appellant - M165/2019)

31/01/2020 Chronology (Appellant - M165/2019)

24/02/2020 Written submissions (Fourth respondent - M160/2019)

27/02/2020 Written submissions (Fourth respondent  - M165/2019)

28/02/2020 Written submissions (First to Third respondents - M160/2019 and M165/2019)

18/03/2020 Reply (Appellant - M165/2019)

20/03/2020 Reply (Appellant - M160/2019)

07/07/2020 Hearing (Full Court)

07/07/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant - M160/2019)

07/07/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant - M165/2019)

07/07/2020 Outline of oral argument (First to Third respondents - M160/2019 and M165/2019)

13/08/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

Case: Strbak v. The Queen

Date: 06 December 2019

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 2h 13m

 

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.

 

Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

Case: State of Western Australia v. Manado on behalf of the Bindunbur Native Title Claim Group & Ors
            State of Western Australia v. Augustine on behalf of the Jabirr Jabirr / Ngumbarl Native Title Claim Group & Ors
            Commonwealth of Australia v. Augustine on behalf of the Jabirr Jabirr / Ngumbarl Native Title Claim Group & Ors
            Commonwealth of Australia v. Manado on behalf of the Bindunbur Native Title Claim Group & Ors

Date: 03 December 2019

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 4h 33m

 

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.

 

Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

Case: Love v. Commonwealth of Australia
           Thoms v. Commonwealth of Australia

Date: 05 December 2019

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 4h 18m

 

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.

 

Page 77 of 257