High Court Bulletin
Produced by the Legal Research Officer, 
High Court of Australia Library
[2018] HCAB 3 (27 April 2018)

A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, refused special leave to appeal and not proceeding or vacated

1: Summary of New Entries
2: Cases Handed Down
3: Cases Reserved
4: Original Jurisdiction
5: Court of Disputed Returns
6: Section 40 Removal
7: Special Leave Granted
8: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
9: Special Leave Refused

1: Summary of New Entries

2: Cases Handed Down
Case	Title	
Burns v Corbett & Ors; Burns v Gaynor & Ors; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns & Ors; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns & Ors; State of New South Wales v Burns & Ors	Constitutional Law 	
Plaintiff M174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor	Migration 	
WET044 v The Republic of Nauru	Migration 	

3: Cases Reserved
Case	Title	
The Queen v Falzon	Criminal Law 	
Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Limited v Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Limited & Anor	Equity 	
UBS AG v Scott Francis Tyne as Trustee of the Argot Trust	Procedure 	
The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Thomas; The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Martin Andrew Pty Ltd; The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Thomas Nominees Pty Ltd; The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Thomas	Taxation 	
Amaca Pty Limited v Latz; Latz v Amaca Pty Limited	Torts 	

4: Original Jurisdiction

5: Court of Disputed Returns 

6: Section 40 Removal 

7: Special Leave Granted
Case	Title	
Work Health Authority v Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd & Anor	Constitutional Law 	
Rodi v State of Western Australia	Criminal Law 	
McPhillamy v The Queen 	Evidence  	

8: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
Case	Title	
Govier v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q)	Negligence 	

2: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the April 2018 sittings.

Constitutional Law

Burns v Corbett & Ors; Burns v Gaynor & Ors; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns & Ors; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns & Ors; State of New South Wales v Burns & Ors 
S183/2017; S185/2017; S186/2017; S187/2017; S188/2017: [2018] HCA 15

Judgment delivered: 18 April 2018 

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ

Catchwords: 

Constitutional law (Cth) – Chapter III – Where complaints made under Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) came before Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales ("NCAT") – Where parties to disputes residents of different States – Where common ground that NCAT exercised State judicial power in hearing and determining disputes – Where common ground that NCAT not a "court of a State" – Whether Ch III of Constitution contains implication preventing any party to federal compact from conferring adjudicative authority in respect of matters listed in ss 75 and 76 of Constitution on organ of government, federal or State, other than a court referred to in Ch III.

Constitutional law (Cth) – Inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws – Where Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) purports to confer jurisdiction on NCAT to determine disputes between residents of different States – Whether State law alters, impairs or detracts from operation of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39(2).

Words and phrases – "adjudicative authority", "administrative tribunal", "alter, impair or detract", "belongs to or is invested in", "constitutional implication", "court", "court of a State", "diversity jurisdiction", "federal Judicature", "federal jurisdiction", "inconsistency", "integrated national court system", "judicial power", "jurisdiction", "matter", "negative implication", "residents of different States", "State jurisdiction".

Constitution – Ch III, ss 51(xxxix), 71, 73(ii), 75, 76, 77, 106, 107, 108, 109.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – ss 38, 39.

Anti –Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), ss 49ZT, 114.

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – ss 28(2), 29(1), 32.

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) – s 31. 

Appealed from NSWSC (CA): [2017] NSWCA 3; (2017) 343 ALR 690; (2017) 316 FLR 448 

Held: Appeals dismissed  

Return to Top

Migration  

Plaintiff M174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor  
M174/2016: [2018] HCA 16

Judgment delivered: 18 April 2018  

Coram: Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ

Catchwords:

Migration  – Pt 2 Div 3 subdiv AB of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where plaintiff applied for protection visa – Where plaintiff claimed real chance of harm due to being Christian – Where plaintiff claimed to attend church regularly – Where delegate of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection called reverend of church and reverend provided information on plaintiff's attendance at church – Where delegate did not provide plaintiff with information provided by reverend or invite plaintiff to comment on it – Where delegate refused to grant protection visa to plaintiff – Whether delegate failed to comply with s 57(2) of Migration Act.

Migration  – Pt 7AA of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where plaintiff "fast track review applicant" within meaning of Migration Act – Whether decision affected by jurisdictional error because of failure to comply with s 57(2) a "fast track reviewable decision" within meaning of Pt 7AA – Where "new information" defined as documents or information not before Minister when deciding to refuse to grant protection visa that Immigration Assessment Authority considers may be relevant – Power of Authority to get new information – Power of Authority to consider new information – Obligation of Authority to invite applicant to comment on new information – Nature of review by Authority – Whether Authority's decision not to interview plaintiff and certain other persons or to have regard to certain information provided by plaintiff legally unreasonable.

Words and phrases  – "condition of valid performance", "decision", "decision that is made in fact", "de novo consideration of the merits", "exceptional circumstances", "fast track reviewable decision", "jurisdictional error", "legally effective decision", "legally unreasonable", "new information", "not a valid decision", "not previously known", "personal information", "relevant information", "review material", "unreasonable failure to exercise power", "would be the reason, or part of the reason for refusing to grant a visa".

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 5, 46A, 54, 55, 56, 57, 69, Pt 7AA.

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – reg 4. 43.  

Held: Questions answered 

Return to Top

WET044 v The Republic of Nauru 
M132/2017: [2018] HCA 14

Judgment delivered: 11 April 2018

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Keane JJ 

Catchwords:

Migration  – Refugees – Appeal as of right from Supreme Court of Nauru – Where Secretary of Nauru Department of Justice and Border Control determined appellant not refugee and not entitled to complementary protection – Where Refugee Status Review Tribunal affirmed Secretary's determination – Where Tribunal adopted reasoning of Secretary – Whether Tribunal failed to consider country information before it – Whether Tribunal acted in way that was procedurally unfair by failing to put to appellant nature and content of country information it relied upon.

Words and phrases – "appeal", "country information", "procedural fairness".

Appeals Act 1972 (Nr) – s 44(a).

Refugees Convention Act 2012 (Nr).
	
Appealed from Supreme Court of Nauru: [2017] NRSC 66

Held: Appeal dismissed 

Return to Top

3: Cases Reserved

The following cases have been reserved or part heard by the High Court of Australia.

Contracts 

Pipikos v Trayans 
A30/2017: [2018] HCATrans 47

Date heard: 15 March 2018

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ

Catchwords: 

Contracts – Enforceability – Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) s 26 – Memorandum or note of agreement – Part performance – Where appellant alleges parties entered into oral agreement that appellant would pay share of deposit on property in exchange for respondent selling interest in another property – Where trial judge held no oral agreement existed – Where Full Court held agreement existed but unenforceable – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find appellant’s payment of deposit amounted to part performance sufficient to entitle appellant to enforce agreement – Whether Full Court erred in holding handwritten note not sufficient “memorandum or note” of agreement for purposes of s 26 – Whether Full Court erred in holding appellant not entitled to enforce agreement in circumstances where respondent acknowledged agreement – Whether Full Court erred in failing to consider concessions in handwritten note to identify acts of part performance.   

Appealed from SASC (CA): [2016] SASCFC 138; (2016) 126 SASR 436 

Return to Top

Criminal Law

Collins v The Queen 
B68/2017: [2018] HCATrans 53

Date heard: 22 March 2018

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Gordon and Edelman JJ

Catchwords: 

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Proviso – Where appellant convicted of three counts of sexual assault and one count of rape – Where trial judge directed jury inconsistency between complainant’s mother’s evidence at committal hearing and trial relevant to mother’s credibility but not complainant’s credibility – Where Court of Appeal found trial judge misdirected jury – Where Crown did not submit proviso should apply – Where Court of Appeal applied proviso and dismissed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in applying proviso. 

Appealed from QSC (CA): [2017] QCA 113

Return to Top

DL v The Queen 
A38/2017: [2018] HCATrans 22

Date heard: 15 February 2018

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Edelman JJ 

Catchwords: 

Criminal law – Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 50 – Where appellant convicted of persistent sexual exploitation of child under s 50 of Act – Where trial judge found appellant sexually assaulted victim “on numerous occasions over a period of some years” – Where Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in failing to find trial judge gave inadequate reasons because failed to identify particular sexual offences separated by at least three days – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in failing to find verdict unsafe, uncertain and/or unreasonable. 

Appealed from SASC (FC): [2015] SASCFC 24 

Return to Top

The Queen v Falzon 
M161/2017: [2018] HCATrans 68

Date heard: 19 April 2018

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ 

Catchwords: 

Criminal law – Evidence – Admissibility – Drug trafficking – Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) ss 71AC, 72A – Where respondent convicted of cultivating commercial quantity of cannabis contrary to s 72A and trafficking drug of dependence contrary to s 71AC(1) – Where trial judge admitted evidence of cash secreted in various locations at respondent’s home as “indicia of trafficking” – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 55(1), 137 – Where majority of Court of Appeal held substantial miscarriage of justice because trial judge erred in admitting evidence of cash found at respondent’s home – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding substantial miscarriage of justice. 

Appealed from VSC (CA): [2017] VSCA 74 

Orders made on 19 April 2018 allowing appeal.
Written reasons of the Court to be published at a future date.

Return to Top

Equity

Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Limited v Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Limited & Anor
A37/2017: [2018] HCATrans 64

Date heard: 12 April 2018  

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Edelman JJ

Catchwords:

Equity – Account of profits – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 181-183, 1317H – Where appellant employed former employees of respondents – Where respondents brought claim against appellant for knowing assistance in former employees’ breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties and duties of confidence and involvement in contraventions of ss 181-183 – Where primary judge held appellant knowingly participated in breaches of fiduciary duties and duties of confidence but dismissed claim for account of profits on basis no profits attributable to use of confidential information or breaches of duties – Where Full Court held sufficient causal connection established and awarded account of profits in equity – Where Full Court also held facts constituting knowing participation amounted to involvement in contraventions of ss 181-183 and made same order for account of profits under s 1317H – Whether Full Court erred in finding sufficient causal connection – Whether Full Court erred in ordering account of profits calculated on basis of net present value of future potential profits where no profits actually made and without regard to accumulated losses incurred by appellant. 

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2017] FCAFC 99

Return to Top

Migration 

CRI026 v Republic of Nauru 
M131/2017: [2018] HCATrans 8; [2018] HCATrans 11

Date heard: 7 and 8 February 2018  

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Nettle JJ 

Catchwords:

Migration – Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 (Cth) – Refugees Convention Act 2012 (Nr) – Where appellant applied to Nauru for refugee status determination under Act – Where Secretary of Nauru Department of Justice determined appellant not refugee and not entitled to complementary protection – Where Refugee Status Review Tribunal affirmed Secretary’s determination – Where Supreme Court of Nauru dismissed appeal – Whether Supreme Court erred in failing to conclude Tribunal misapplied Nauruan law of complementary protection by applying “reasonable relocation” test – Whether Supreme Court erred in failing to conclude erroneous reference by Tribunal in decision to appellant as Tamil from Sri Lanka gave rise to error of law.   
	
Appealed from Supreme Court of Nauru: [2017] NRSC 67

Return to Top

CRI028 v Republic of Nauru 
M66/2017: [2018] HCATrans 19 

Date heard: 14 February 2018  

Coram: Bell, Gordon and Edelman JJ 

Catchwords:

Migration – Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 (Cth) – Refugees Convention Act 2012 (Nr) – Where appellant applied to Nauru for refugee status determination under Act – Where Secretary of Nauru Department of Justice determined appellant not refugee and not entitled to complementary protection – Where Refugee Status Review Tribunal affirmed Secretary’s determination – Where Supreme Court of Nauru dismissed appeal – Whether Supreme Court erred in failing to find Tribunal erred in identifying and applying law of “internal protection” or relocation.   

Appealed from Supreme Court of Nauru: [2017] NRSC 32

Return to Top

DWN027 v Republic of Nauru 
M145/2017: [2018] HCATrans 8; [2018] HCATrans 11

Date heard: 7 and 8 February 2018  

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Nettle JJ 

Catchwords:

Migration – Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 (Cth) – Refugees Convention Act 2012 (Nr) – Where appellant applied to Nauru for refugee status determination under Act – Where Secretary of Nauru Department of Justice determined appellant not refugee and not entitled to complementary protection – Where Refugee Status Review Tribunal affirmed Secretary’s determination – Where Supreme Court of Nauru dismissed appeal – Whether Supreme Court erred in failing to conclude Tribunal misapplied Nauruan law of complementary protection by applying “reasonable relocation” test – Whether Supreme Court erred in failing to conclude Tribunal erred by failing to consider Nauru’s obligations under Convention on the Rights of the Child – Whether Supreme Court erred in failing to conclude Tribunal erred by failing to consider integer of appellant’s objections to relocation.  

Appealed from Supreme Court of Nauru: [2017] NRSC 77

Return to Top

EMP144 v Republic of Nauru   
M151/2017: [2018] HCATrans 8; [2018] HCATrans 11

Date heard: 7 and 8 February 2018  

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Nettle JJ 

Catchwords:

Migration – Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 (Cth) – Refugees Convention Act 2012 (Nr) – Where appellant applied to Nauru for refugee status determination under Act – Where Secretary of Nauru Department of Justice determined appellant not refugee and not entitled to complementary protection – Where Refugee Status Review Tribunal affirmed Secretary’s determination – Where Supreme Court of Nauru dismissed appeal – Whether Supreme Court erred by failing to conclude Tribunal failed to consider objections to relocation under Refugees Convention – Whether Supreme Court erred in failing to conclude Tribunal denied appellant procedural fairness – Whether Supreme Court erred by failing to conclude Tribunal failed to consider integers of complementary protection claim – Whether Supreme Court erred in failing to conclude Tribunal misapplied Nauruan law of complementary protection by applying “reasonable relocation” test.   

Appealed from Supreme Court of Nauru: [2017] NRSC 73

Return to Top

Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor  
S1/2018: [2018] HCATrans 52

Date heard: 21 March 2018

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Edelman JJ    

Catchwords:

Migration – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – Jurisdictional error – Where appellant applied for Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s 65 of Act – Where cl 820.211(2)(d)(ii) of sch 2 of Regulations required appellant to satisfy sch 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 unless Minister satisfied compelling reasons for not applying criteria – Where delegate of Minister refused visa on basis appellant did not satisfy item 3001 – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) affirmed delegate’s decision on basis no compelling reasons for not applying sch 3 criteria and appellant did not satisfy PIC 4004 as required by cl 820.223 of sch 2 – Where Federal Circuit Court quashed decision on basis AAT fell into jurisdictional error in confining itself to “compelling reasons” at time of application – Where majority of Full Federal Court allowed appeal, restoring AAT decision on basis AAT retained jurisdiction to determine discrete issue relating to PIC 4004 – Whether Full Federal Court erred in finding that, although AAT decision infected by jurisdictional error, AAT nevertheless retained jurisdiction to make decision. 

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2017] FCAFC 82; (2017) 252 FCR 31 

Return to Top

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW & Ors 
S244/2017: [2018] HCATrans 44

Date heard: 13 March 2018

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ    

Catchwords:

Migration – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 426A(1) – Where first and second respondents applied for Protection (Class XA) visas – Where Department refused applications – Where respondents filed application for review by Refugee Review Tribunal – Where application form contained postal address, mobile phone number and email address – Where Tribunal by letter addressed to postal address invited first and second respondents to provide further information – Where first and second respondents did not respond – Where Tribunal by further letter invited first and second respondents to appear before it – Where first and second respondents did not attend – Where Tribunal exercised power under s 426A(1) to affirm decision without taking further action – Where Federal Circuit Court held Tribunal’s decision unreasonable – Where Full Court dismissed appeal – Whether Full Court erred by requiring Minister to establish House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 error – Whether Full Court erred by failing to find primary judge erred in concluding Tribunal’s decision unreasonable. 

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2017] FCAFC 33; (2017) 248 FCR 1 
	
Return to Top

Shrestha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor; Ghimire v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor; Acharya v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
M141/2017, M142/2017, M143/2017: [2018] HCATrans 52

Date heard: 21 March 2018

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Edelman JJ    

Catchwords: 

Migration – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 116(1)(a) – Visa cancellation – Where appellants granted Class TU subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visas based on enrolments in bachelor degree and diploma courses – Where appellants’ enrolment in diploma courses ceased after appellants failed subjects – Where appellants’ enrolment in bachelor degree courses subsequently cancelled – Where Tribunal cancelled appellants’ visas under s 116(1)(a) – Where majority of Federal Court found decision affected by jurisdictional error but refused relief on basis of futility – Whether Federal Court erred in exercising discretion not to issue writs of certiorari.    

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2017] FCAFC 69; (2017) 251 FCR 143 

Return to Top

Procedure 

Rozenblit v Vainer & Anor 
M114/2017: [2018] HCATrans 13

Date heard: 9 February 2018 

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Gordon and Edelman JJ 

Catchwords:

Procedure – Stay of proceeding – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) r 63.03(3) – Where appellant commenced proceeding in Supreme Court – Where appellant made applications for leave to file and serve amended statement of claim – Where applications refused with costs – Where costs unpaid because appellant impecunious – Where appellant made further application – Where associate judge granted leave to file and serve amended statement of claim but ordered proceeding be stayed under r 63.03(3) until appellant paid interlocutory costs orders – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to find associate judge erred in making order to stay proceedings. 

Appealed from VSC (CA): [2017] VSCA 52
	
Return to Top

UBS AG v Scott Francis Tyne as Trustee of the Argot Trust 
B54/2017: [2018] HCATrans 67

Date heard: 18 April 2018

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ

Catchwords:

Procedure – Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M – Abuse of process – Where appellant commenced proceedings in High Court of Singapore in 2010 against first respondent and another party – Where respondents and other party subsequently commenced proceedings in Supreme Court of New South Wales –Where Supreme Court proceedings permanently stayed in 2013 – Where respondents commenced proceedings in Federal Court in 2014 raising same factual matters – Where proceedings permanently stayed by primary judge as abuse of process – Where majority of Full Federal Court allowed appeal – Whether majority of Full Federal Court erred in failing to take into account manifest unfairness to appellant and effect of proceedings in bringing administration of justice into disrepute – Whether majority erred in failing to take into account Singapore proceedings in determining whether abuse of process. 

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2017] FCAFC 5; (2017) 250 FCR 341; (2017) 341 ALR 415
	
Return to Top

Taxation 

The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Thomas; The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Martin Andrew Pty Ltd; The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Thomas Nominees Pty Ltd; The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Thomas
B60/2017; B61/2017; B62/2017; B63/2017: [2018] HCATrans 62; [2018] HCATrans 63

Date heard: 10 and 11 April 2018

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ

Catchwords: 

Taxation – Franking credits – Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) pt 3-6 div 207 – Where trustee resolved to apply net income of trust fund to benefit of two beneficiaries on assumption franking credits could be treated as separate category of income from dividends to which credits attached – Where Commissioner of Taxation notified trustee of intention to commence audit – Where trustee sought directions from Queensland Supreme Court under Trusts Act 1973 (Qld) s 96 as to proper construction of trust deed and resolutions – Where Commissioner notified of proceedings but did not seek to become party – Where Supreme Court declared trustee resolutions effective to achieve franking credit distributions – Where Commissioner of Taxation issued amended notices of assessment – Where primary judge upheld amended assessments – Where Full Court allowed appeal – Whether Full Court erred in concluding Commissioner bound by declarations made by Supreme Court – Whether Full Court erred in concluding franking credits may be distributed on a different basis to income from dividends. 

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2017] FCAFC 57; (2017) 105 ATR 413; (2017) 2017 ATC 20-612 

Return to Top

Torts 

Amaca Pty Limited v Latz; Latz v Amaca Pty Limited
A8/2018, A7/2018: [2018] HCATrans 66

Date heard: 17 April 2018 

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ

Catchwords: 

Torts – Personal injury – Damages – Future economic loss – Where primary judge concluded plaintiff’s mesothelioma caused by asbestos emanating from products manufactured by defendant – Where primary judge awarded damages for loss of expectation of receiving age pension and superannuation pension during “lost years” – Where majority of Full Court held primary judge correctly awarded damages for future economic loss but reduced allowance for superannuation pension – Whether majority of Full Court erred in failing to find primary judge erred in awarding damages for future economic loss during “lost years” – Whether Full Court erred in including allowance for loss of expectation of receiving age pension and superannuation pension – Whether Full Court erred in deducting benefit payable to partner upon death from allowance for loss of expectation of receiving superannuation pension. 

Appealed from SASC (FC): [2017] SASCFC 145; (2017) 129 SASR 61

Return to Top

Trkulja v Google Inc 
M88/2017: [2018] HCATrans 48

Date heard: 20 March 2018  

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ 

Catchwords: 

Torts – Defamation – Publication – Respondent internet search engine – Search results – Images – Text – Autocomplete predictions – Whether respondent “published” matters relied on by applicant. 

Practice and procedure – Service outside jurisdiction – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) r 7.01(1)(i) and (j) – Where respondent served in United States – Where Court of Appeal held service should be set aside because no real prospect of success – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding no real prospect of success in proving respondent was publisher – Whether Court of Appeal erred in confining case to primary publisher rather than secondary publisher – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding material not capable of conveying defamatory meaning. 

Appealed from VSC (CA): [2016] VSCA 333; (2016) 342 ALR 504

Return to Top

4: Original Jurisdiction

The following cases are ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia.

Constitutional Law 

Minogue v State of Victoria 
M2/2017: Special Case

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – Parole – Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) s 74AAA – Where plaintiff convicted of murder – Where victim was police officer – Where plaintiff sentenced to life imprisonment – Where non-parole period expired on 30 September 2016 – Where Justice Legislation Amendment (Parole Reform and Other matters) Act 2016 (Vic) inserted s 74AAA into Corrections Act – Where s 74AAA imposes conditions for making parole order for prisoner who murdered police officer – Where Corrections Legislation Further Amendment Act 2017 (Vic) inserted s 127A into Corrections Act – Where s 127A provides s 74AAA applies regardless of whether prior to commencement of s 74AAA prisoner became eligible for parole, prisoner took steps to ask Board to grant parole, or Board began consideration of whether prisoner should be granted parole – Whether s 74AAA applies where prior to commencement of s 74AAA, plaintiff became eligible for parole, plaintiff made application for parole, or Board decided to proceed with parole planning – Whether s 74AAA applies where plaintiff commenced proceeding prior to commencement of s 127A – Whether s 74AAA applies where knowledge or recklessness as to whether victim was police officer was not element of offence of which plaintiff convicted – Whether s 74AAA and/or s 127A invalid as unconstitutional.
	
Return to Top

5: Court of Disputed Returns

Re Gallagher 
C32/2017: [2018] HCATrans 46

Date heard: 14 March 2018 

Coram: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ 

Catchwords:

Court of Disputed Returns – Constitution s 44(i) – Where Ms Gallagher elected to Senate in 2 July 2016 election – Where Ms Gallagher held dual citizenship of Australia and United Kingdom – Where Ms Gallagher applied to renounce British citizenship on 20 April 2016 – Where application received by Home Office on 26 April 2016 – Where Ms Gallagher ceased to be British citizen on 16 August 2016 – Whether by reason of s 44(i) there is vacancy in representation for Australian Capital Territory in Senate for place for which Ms Gallagher returned. 

Return to Top

6: Section 40 Removal

The following cases are ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia.

Constitutional Law 

Clubb v Edwards & Anor
M46/2018: Removed into High Court under s 40 of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) on 23 March 2018  

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – Implied freedom of political communication – Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) s 185D – Where s 185D prohibits engaging in “prohibited behaviour” within “safe access zone” – Where “prohibited behaviour” defined to include “communicating by any means in relation to abortions in a manner that is able to be seen or heard by a person accessing, or attempting to access, or leaving premises at which abortions are provided and is reasonably likely to cause distress or anxiety” – Where appellant convicted of charge under s 185D in Magistrates’ Court – Whether 185D impermissibly burdens implied freedom of political communication. 

Return to Top

Preston v Avery & Anor
H2/2018: Removed into High Court under s 40 of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) on 23 March 2018 

Catchwords:

Constitutional law – Implied freedom of political communication – Reproductive Health (Access to Termination) Act 2013 (Tas) s 9(2) – Where s 9(2) prohibits protest in relation to terminations that is able to be seen or heard by person accessing or attempting to access premises at which terminations provided – Where appellant convicted in Hobart Court of Petty Sessions of contraventions of s 9(2) – Whether s 9(2) impermissibly burdens implied freedom of political communication. 

Return to Top

7: Special Leave Granted

The following cases have been granted special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

Constitutional Law  

Work Health Authority v Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd & Anor 
D7/2017: [2018] HCATrans 69

Date heard: 20 April 2018 – Special leave granted.  

Catchwords: 

Constitutional law – Inconsistency – Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) – Where hot air balloon passenger died from injuries suffered as result of scarf being sucked into inflation fan – Where appellant alleged first respondent breached s 32 of Act – Where magistrate dismissed complaint on basis Air Navigation Act 1920 (Cth), Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) and other Commonwealth regulation covered field of safety of air navigation – Where Court of Appeal allowed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding federal civil aviation legislation excluded operation of Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT).  

Appealed from NTSC (CA): [2017] NTCA 7; (2017) 326 FLR 1 

Return to Top

Corporations 

Mighty River International Limited v Hughes & Ors; Mighty River International Limited v Mineral Resources Limited & Ors 
P7/2018, P8/2018: [2018] HCATrans 26

Date heard: 16 February 2018 – Special leave granted.  

Catchwords: 

Corporations – Deed of company arrangement – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 444A, 445G – Where company entered into deed of company arrangement – Where cl 8 provided no property of company available for distribution to creditors – Where appellant brought proceedings seeking declaration deed void or order setting deed aside – Where Supreme Court made declaration under s 445G(2) deed not void – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding deed complied with mandatory requirements of s 444A(4)(b) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold deed void or invalid pursuant to s 445G(2).

Appealed from WASC (CA): [2017] WASCA 152; (2017) 52 WAR 1; (2017) 323 FLR 8

Return to Top

Costs 

Coshott v Spencer & Ors 
S4/2018: [2017] HCATrans 263

Date heard: 15 December 2017 – Special leave granted.

Catchwords: 

Costs – Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98 – Exception in London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley (1884) 13 QBD 872 – Solicitor acting as self-represented litigant – Where first respondent represented clients in Federal Court proceedings – Where clients and appellant bought application for assessment of costs claimed in respect of Federal Court proceedings – Where costs assessor dismissed appellant’s application on basis appellant not “third party payer” within meaning of Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) s 302A – Where District Court dismissed appeal against costs assessment – Where District Court ordered appellant pay costs of proceedings – Where costs assessor allowed first respondent professional costs for self-representation at costs appeal – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal against second costs assessment – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding first respondent entitled to recover costs in respect of time spent in conduct of legal proceedings – Whether costs assessor has jurisdiction to determine if appellant “third party payer” within meaning of s 302A – Whether Chorley exception inapplicable because of Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98. 

Appealed from NSW (CA): [2017] NSWCA 118

Return to Top

Criminal Law

DL v The Queen 
S309/2017: [2017] HCATrans 262

Date heard: 15 December 2017 – Special leave granted.

Catchwords: 

Criminal law – Appeal against sentence – Muldrock error – Miscarriage of justice – Where appellant convicted of murder – Where primary judge sentenced appellant to 22 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 17 years – Where appellant appealed sentence to Court of Criminal Appeal – Where Crown conceded in light of Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 44 CLR 120  that primary judge erred in application of standard non-parole period legislation – Where majority of Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed appeal, holding no lesser sentence warranted – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal denied appellant procedural fairness – Whether majority of Court of Criminal Appeal erred in substituting aggravated factual findings in absence of challenge to primary judge’s findings in circumstances where majority held findings open to primary judge. 

Appealed from NSW (CA): [2017] NSWCCA 58

Return to Top

Johnson v The Queen 
A9/2018: [2018] HCATrans 31

Date heard: 16 February 2018 – Special leave granted on limited grounds.

Catchwords: 

Criminal law – Evidence – Probative value – Doli incapax – Where jury convicted appellant of five counts of sexual offences against younger sister – Where Court of Criminal Appeal quashed convictions in respect of count 1 (“shed incident”) because prosecution failed to rebut presumption of doli incapax and count 3 (persistent sexual exploitation) because evidence did not identify any particular act – Where Court of Criminal Appeal upheld remaining convictions –  Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred by failing to set aside remaining convictions because evidence led in respect of courts 1 and 3 inadmissible in respect of other counts or permissible use not sufficiently identified – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in failing to find substantial miscarriage of justice. 

Appealed from SASC (FC): [2015] SASCFC 170

Return to Top

Lane v The Queen 
S308/2017: [2017] HCATrans 264

Date heard: 15 December 2017 – Special leave granted on limited grounds.

Catchwords: 

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Proviso – Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6(1) – Where jury found appellant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter – Where Crown alleged two discrete voluntary acts causing death – Where Court of Criminal Appeal held trial judge erred by failing to direct that jury must be unanimous as to at least one of acts upon which the Crown relied – Where majority of Court of Appeal held no substantial miscarriage of justice within meaning of s 6(1) – Whether majority of Court of Criminal Appeal erred in application of proviso. 

Appealed from NSW (CA): [2017] NSWCCA 46

Return to Top

Rodi v State of Western Australia 
P27/2017: [2018] HCATrans 71

Date heard: 20 April 2018 – Special leave granted.

Catchwords: 

Criminal law – Miscarriage of justice – Fresh evidence – Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) – Where appellant convicted at trial of possession with intent to sell or supply contrary to s 6(1)(a) of Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) – Where prosecution witness gave evidence at trial about cannabis yields – Where witness’ evidence inconsistent with witness’ earlier evidence – Where majority of Court of Appeal characterised witness’ earlier evidence as fresh evidence but dismissed appeal on basis no significant possibility appellant would have been acquitted if fresh evidence before jury – Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in concluding no significant possibility of acquittal – Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in holding that if prosecutor breached duty of disclosure, breach did not give rise to miscarriage of justice. 

Appealed from WASC (CA): [2017] WASCA 81; (2017) 51 WAR 96 

Return to Top

Strickland (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Tucker (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Hodges (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Galloway (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors
M168/2017; M176/2017; M175/2017; M174/2017: [2017] HCATrans 238 

Date heard: 17 November 2017 – Special leave granted on limited grounds.

Catchwords: 

Criminal law – Stay of proceedings – Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) – Investigations – Where Australian Federal Police (“AFP”) commenced investigation – Where appellants summoned by Australian Crime Commission for compulsory examination – Where examiner failed to make non-publication direction under s 25A(9) of Act prohibiting publication of examination material concerning appellants to AFP and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions – Where primary judge found examination conducted for improper purpose of assisting AFP and had unfair consequences for trial – Where primary judge ordered permanent stay of proceedings – Where Court of Appeal quashed order – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding unlawful compulsory examination for purpose of achieving forensic advantage insufficient in circumstances to justify permanent stay of proceedings. 

Appealed from VSC (CA): [2017] VSCA 120

Return to Top

The Queen v Dennis Bauer (A Pseudonym) (No 2) 
M1/2018: [2017] HCATrans 269

Date heard: 15 December 2017 – Special leave granted.

Catchwords: 

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Sexual offences against child – Re-trial after appeal – Where trial judge permitted previously recorded evidence of complainant to be tendered – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding trial judge erred in permitting previously recorded evidence to be tendered as evidence in re-trial – Tendency evidence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding substantial miscarriage of justice because of admission of tendency evidence – Proper approach to tendency evidence where prosecution seeks to prove tendency on evidence from complainant and source independent of complainant – Severance – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding failure to sever charge 2 occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding admission of previous statement of complaint occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice.  

Appealed from VSC (CA): [2017] VSCA 176

Return to Top

Evidence 

McPhillamy v The Queen 
S258/2017: [2018] HCATrans 73

Date heard: 20 April 2018 – Special leave granted on limited grounds.

Catchwords: 

Evidence – Tendency evidence – Where appellant charged with offences involving child sexual abuse – Where trial judge admitted tendency evidence –  Where appellant convicted at trial – Where Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether majority of Court of Criminal Appeal erred in holding tendency evidence had significant probative value – Whether majority of Court of Criminal Appeal erred in holding probative value of tendency evidence substantially outweighed prejudicial effect. 

Appealed from NSW (CA): [2017] NSWCCA 130

Return to Top

Interpretation 

Commissioner of Taxation for the Commonwealth of Australia v Tomaras & Ors
B9/2018: [2018] HCATrans 56

Date heard: 23 March 2018 – Special leave granted.  

Catchwords: 

Interpretation – Crown immunity – Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 90AE – Presumption that statutory provisions expressed in general terms do not bind Crown – Where wife commenced proceedings against husband seeking alteration of property interests including order under s 90AE substituting husband for wife in respect of indebtedness to Commissioner – Where Full Family Court held s 90AE conferred power to make order – Whether Full Family Court erred in concluding presumption Crown not bound by statute did not apply in construction of s 90AE – If yes, whether Full Family Court erred in concluding presumption would have been rebutted – Whether Full Family Court erred in failing to conclude neither Commissioner nor Commonwealth “creditor” or “third party” for purposes of s 90AE. 

Appealed from Fam CA (FC): [2017] FamCAFC 216 

Return to Top

Comptroller General of Customs v Zappia
S91/2018: [2018] HCATrans 51

Date determined: 21 March 2018 – Special leave granted.  

Catchwords: 

Interpretation – Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 35A – Where respondent employed as general manager of company operating warehouse – Where cigarettes stolen from warehouse – Where respondent served with notice under s 35A of Act requiring payment of amount of duty payable on stolen cigarettes – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal dismissed application for review of decision to issue notice – Where Full Federal Court allowed appeal – Whether majority of Full Court erred in holding employee of entity holding license to warehouse dutiable goods not capable of being “person who has, or has been entrusted with, the possession, custody or control of dutiable goods” within meaning of s 35A(1) – Whether majority of Full Court erred in holding that on proper construction of s 35A(1), statutory demand issued by appellant to respondent invalid and of no effect. 

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2017] FCAFC 147  

Return to Top

SAS Trustee Corporation v Miles
S260/2017: [2017] HCATrans 208

Date heard: 20 October 2017 – Special leave granted.

Catchwords:

Interpretation – Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) – Where respondent discharged from police force due to infirmities as result of being “hurt on duty” – Where respondent applied for increase in annual superannuation allowance – Where application rejected by trustee – Where trustee’s decision upheld by District Court – Where Court of Appeal allowed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to construe s 10(1A)(b) in context – Whether s 10(1A)(b) authorises payment of additional superannuation allowance where incapacity not due to infirmity determined by Commissioner under s 10B(3) to have been caused by being “hurt on duty”. 

Appealed from NSWSC (CA): [2017] NSWCA 86

Return to Top

Williams v Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council & Anor
C5/2018: [2018] HCATrans 50

Date determined: 21 March 2018 – Special leave granted.  

Catchwords: 

Interpretation – Concurrent operation – Where Council leased property to appellant under residential tenancy agreement – Where appellant commenced proceedings in ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking orders for repairs and compensation – Where Tribunal referred questions of law to Supreme Court for determination – Where Court of Appeal allowed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding ACT laws retain subordinate status when applied to Jervis Bay Territory by force of s 4A of Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act 1915 (Cth) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding ss 8 and 9 of Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT) not capable of operating concurrently with Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986 (Cth) such that ss 8 and 9 do not apply to “Aboriginal Land” for purposes of s 46 of Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act. 

Appealed from ACT (CA): [2017] ACTCA 46; (2017) 12 ACTLR 207; (2017) 326 FLR 58 

Return to Top

Migration

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA & Anor  
S36/2018: [2018] HCATrans 34

Date heard: 16 February 2018 – Special leave granted.  

Catchwords:

Migration – Procedural fairness – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 438(2) – Where first respondent applied for Protection (Class XA) visa – Where application refused by delegate – Where first respondent applied to Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of decision – Where delegate notified Tribunal s 438(2)(a) applied to certain documents because given in confidence to Minister or Department – Where Tribunal did not inform first respondent of notification – Where copies of documents previously provided to first respondent  – Where Federal Circuit Court dismissed application for judicial review – Where Federal Court allowed appeal on basis Tribunal denied first respondent procedural fairness – Whether Federal Court erred in relying on possibility Tribunal may not have had regard to certain information because of notification under s 438(2) in finding Tribunal denied first respondent procedural fairness – Whether Federal Court erred in holding Tribunal denied first respondent procedural fairness in circumstances where documents in possession of first respondent prior to Tribunal hearing. 

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2017] FCA 1055

Return to Top

Native Title 

Northern Territory of Australia v Alan Griffiths and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples & Anor; Commonwealth of Australia v Alan Griffiths and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples & Anor; Alan Griffiths and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples v Northern Territory of Australia & Anor

D1/2018; D2/2018; D3/2018: [2018] HCATrans 28

Date heard: 16 February 2018 – Special leave granted.

Catchwords:

Native title – Extinguishment – Compensation for extinguishment – Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) – Where claim brought against Commonwealth and Northern Territory for extinguishment of non-exclusive native title rights and interests in Timber Creek – Where primary judge awarded claim group compensation for economic value of extinguished rights, interest, and solatium for loss or impairment of rights and interests – Where Full Court held primary judge erred in assessing value of extinguished rights and concluded value of rights was 65% of value of freehold title – Whether Full Court’s assessment of economic value of rights erroneous or manifestly excessive in light of restrictions and limitations on rights – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find primary judge erred in awarding interest as part of compensation under s 51(1) of Act and not as interest on compensation – Whether Full Court erred in assessing interest by reference to 65% of value of freehold title – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find primary judge erred in assessing compensation for non-economic loss – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find primary judge’s assessment of compensation for non-economic loss manifestly excessive – Whether Full Court erred in finding commercial agreements entered into by claimants containing solatium-type payments irrelevant to assessment of compensation.  

Appealed from FCA (FC): [2017] FCAFC 106; (2017) 346 ALR 247 

Return to Top

Probate  

Nobarani v Mariconte 
S270/2017: [2017] HCATrans 236

Date heard: 17 November 2017 – Special leave granted. 

Catchwords:

Probate – Appeal against grant of probate – Procedural fairness – Where respondent sought grant of probate of will dated 5 December 2013 – Where earlier will left share of jewellery and personal effects to appellant – Where appellant lodged caveat against grant of probate – Where primary judge granted probate – Where Court of Appeal found appellant denied procedural fairness at trial – Where majority of Court of Appeal held re-trial should not be ordered – Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in failing to order re-trial – Whether intermediate appellate court can assess whether party denied procedural fairness would be unsuccessful if new trial ordered – Whether appellant lacked sufficient interest to challenge grant of probate.  

Appealed from NSW (CA): [2017] NSWCA 124
	
Return to Top

Stamp Duty 

Commissioner of State Revenue v Placer Dome Inc 
P6/2018: [2018] HCATrans 25
 
Date heard: 16 February 2018 – Special leave granted.  

Catchwords: 

Stamp duty – Stamp Act 1921 (WA) s 76ATI – Assessment – Acquisition of shares – Where Commissioner assessed stamp duty payable for share acquisition on basis value of respondent’s land was value of all respondent’s property less value of “non-land assets” – Where Tribunal affirmed Commissioner’s decision – Where Court of Appeal allowed appeal on basis Tribunal failed to distinguish between value of respondent’s land and value of respondent’s business – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Tribunal erred in failing to apply “conventional Spencer principles” in valuing land – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding evidence supported finding respondent’s business had material goodwill.     

Appealed from WASC (CA): [2017] WASCA 165

Return to Top

8: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated

Negligence  

Govier v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q)   
B51/2017: [2018] HCATrans 65

Date heard: 13 April 2018 – Special leave revoked.  

Coram: Bell, Gageler, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ    

Catchwords: 

Negligence – Duty of care – Psychiatric injury – Where appellant employed by respondent – Where appellant attacked by co-worker – Where respondent informed appellant on day of attack that her conduct was under investigation – Where appellant too ill to attend investigative interviews – Where respondent asserted appellant refused to attend interviews and made preliminary findings against her – Where appellant’s employment subsequently terminated – Where appellant claimed damages for psychiatric injuries – Where trial judge held respondent owed no duty of care to appellant with respect to conduct of investigative process – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding respondent did not owe appellant duty of care in respect of investigative process. 

Appealed from QSC (CA): [2017] QCA 12

Return to Top

9: Special Leave Refused

Publication of Reasons: 11 April 2018 

No.	
Applicant
	
Respondent	
Court appealed from	
Result 	
1.		Sandex
	Bondir & Anor
(M12/2018)
	Family Court of Australia

	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 75	
2.		BZAAA
	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
(S287/2017)
	Federal Court of Australia
[2017] FCA 1634
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 76	
3.		Goni
	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
(S305/2017)
	Federal Court of Australia
No MNC
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 77	
4.		Singh
	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
(S34/2018)
	Federal Court of Australia
[2017] FCA 1424
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 78	
Return to Top

Publication of Reasons: 17 April 2018 

No.	
Applicant
	
Respondent	
Court appealed from	
Results	
1.		Maras
	Lesses
(A43/2017)
	Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia
[2017] SASCFC 154
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 79	
2.		Bodycorp Repairers 
Pty Ltd
	Maisano & Ors
(M152/2017)
	Supreme Court of Victoria
[2017] VSCA 252
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 80
	
3.		Zandipour
	The Queen
(M156/2017)
	Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal)
[2017] VSCA 179
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 81
	
4.		Collins & Anor
	Timbercorp Finance 
Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) & Anor
(M4/2018)
	Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal)
[2017] VSCA 361
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 82
	
5.		Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC & Ors
	Gilead Sciences Pty Ltd & Anor
(S12/2018)
	Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
[2017] FCAFC 196
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 83
	
6.		Lodin
	Lodin
(S14/2018)
	Supreme Court of 
New South Wales 
(Court of Appeal)
[2017] NSWCA 327
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 84
	
7.		Mailey & Ors
	Sutherland Shire Council
(S22/2018)
	Supreme Court of 
New South Wales 
(Court of Appeal)
[2017] NSWCA 343
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 85
	
Return to Top

Publication of Reasons: 18 April 2018 

No.	
Applicant
	
Respondent	
Court appealed from	
Result	
1.		Kowalski
	Mitsubishi Motors Australia Staff Superannuation & Anor
(A1/2018)
	Supreme Court of 
South Australia
[2017] SASCFC 175
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 86	
2.		Hunter
	Child Support Registrar
(A6/2018)
	Full Court of the Family Court of Australia

	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 87	
3.		Grewal & Anor
	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
(M6/2018)
	Federal Court of Australia
[2017] FCA 1533
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 88	
4.		CVJ16
	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
(S33/2018)
	Federal Court of Australia
[2018] FCA 52
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 89	
Return to Top

Publication of Reasons: 18 April 2018 

No.	
Applicant
	
Respondent	
Court appealed from	
Result	
1.		Groom
	Police
(A2/2018)
	Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia
[2017] SASCFC 161
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 90
	
2.		BZS15
	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
(M181/2017)
	Federal Court of Australia
[2017] FCA 1349
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 92	
3.		CAL16 & Anor
	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
(S283/2017)
	Federal Court of Australia
[2017] FCA 1630
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 93	
4.		Zhu & Anor
	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
(S32/2018)
	Federal Court of Australia
[2018] FCA 68
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 94	
5.		Singh
	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
(A44/2017)
	Federal Court of Australia
[2017] FCA 1428
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 95	
6.		Stubbs
	The Queen
(C1/2018)
	Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Court of Appeal)
[2017] ACTCA 58
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 96	
7.		Barrett
	TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd
(S313/2017)
	Supreme Court of 
New South Wales 
(Court of Appeal)
[2017] NSWCA 304
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 97	
8.		South West Helicopters Pty Limited  & Anor
	Essential Energy (Formerly Country Energy) & Ors
(S10/2018)
	Supreme Court of 
New South Wales 
(Court of Appeal)
[2017] NSWCA 312
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 98	
9.		South West Helicopters Pty Limited & Anor
	Essential Energy & Ors
(S11/2018)
	Supreme Court of 
New South Wales 
(Court of Appeal)
[2017] NSWCA 312
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 98	
10.		Valve Corporation
	Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(S23/2018)
	Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
[2017] FCAFC 224
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 99	
11.		Forrester
	Smoje
(S2/2018)
	Supreme Court of 
New South Wales 
(Court of Appeal)
[2017] NSWCA 308
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 100	
12.		The Owners Strata Plan Number 57164
	Yau & Anor
(S21/2018)
	Supreme Court of 
New South Wales 
(Court of Appeal)
[2017] NSWCA 341
	Application dismissed
[2018] HCASL 101	
13.		Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
	CRY16 & Anor
(M7/2018)
	Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
[2017] FCAFC 210
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 102	
14.		Blakeley & Ors
	CGU Insurance Limited & Ors
(M9/2018)
	Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal)
[2017] VSCA 378
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 103	
15.		Dimitrov
	The Supreme Court of Victoria & Ors
(S291/2017)
	High Court of Australia
[2017] HCA 51
	Application dismissed
with costs
[2018] HCASL 104	
Return to Top

20 April 2018: Sydney 

No.
	
Applicant	
Respondent	
Court appealed from	
Result 	
1.		Brisbane Youth Service Inc 	Beven 
(B57/2017)
	Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal)
[2017] QCA 211 
	Application dismissed with costs 
[2018] HCATrans 72 	
2.		Transport Accident Commission of Victoria
	Yarham & Ors
(S8/2018)
	Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) 
[2017] NSWCA 301	Application dismissed with costs
[2018] HCATrans 74	
Return to Top

20 April 2018: Sydney 

No.
	
Applicant	
Respondent	
Court appealed from	
Result 	
1.		Andalong 	O’Neill 
(D8/2017)	Supreme Court of the Northern Territory 
[2017] NTSC 77
	Application dismissed 
[2018] HCATrans 70 	
Return to Top