Forestry Corporation of New South Wales v. South East Forest Rescue Incorporated INC9894030
Case No.
S120/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/05/2024 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Adamson JA, Basten AJA , Griffiths AJA)
Catchwords
Civil procedure – standing – where respondent environmental organisation brought civil enforcement proceedings seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against respondent in relation to certain forestry operations on basis of impact on three species of glider – where primary judge found respondent lacked standing because of no “special interest” in subject matter – where Court of Appeal set aside decision on basis that clear language required to abrogate or curtail fundamental rights – whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that on proper construction of Forestry Act 2012 (NSW), ss 69SB and 69ZA and Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW), ss 13, 14 and 13.14A private entities have standing to bring civil enforcement proceedings for alleged breach of integrated forestry operations agreement – whether there is presumption of standing to bring proceedings for alleged breach by third party where private person or entity has “special interest” unless abrogated by statute.
Documents*
05/09/2024 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
19/09/2024 Notice of appeal
24/10/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/10/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
21/11/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
10/12/2024 Amended written submissions (Respondent)
12/12/2024 Reply
12/02/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
12/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
09/04/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v. Bartley & Ors
Case No.
S119/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
05/04/2024 Federal Court of Australia (Katzmann, Snaden and Raper JJ)
Catchwords
Industrial law – unfair dismissal – genuine redundancy – redeployment – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 385(b), 389(2) – where s 385(d) provides applicant for unfair dismissal remedy must demonstrate dismissal not case of genuine redundancy – where s 389(2) provides no genuine redundancy if reasonable in all the circumstances to redeploy employee within employer’s enterprise – where respondent scaled back mining operations and terminated respondents’ employment – whether Full Federal Court erred in construing s389(2) as authorising Fair Work Commission to inquire into whether employer could have made alternative changes to enterprise (including by terminating other operational or staffing arrangements) so as to make position available to otherwise redundant employee – whether determination of genuine redundancy discretionary decision reviewable only for House v King error.
Documents
05/09/2024 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
18/09/2024 Notice of appeal
24/10/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/10/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
21/11/2024 Written submissions (First to Twenty-Second Respondents)
12/12/2024 Reply
06/03/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
06/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (First to Twenty-Second Respondents)
Brawn v. The King
Case No.
A20/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/09/2022 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Appeal) (Livesey P, Bleby and David JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal practice – appeal – miscarriage of justice – prosecution duty of disclosure – where appellant found guilty of one count of maintaining sexual relationship with child – where defence case was that complainant lied about identity of abuser – where, after trial, prosecution disclosed that appellant’s father had been charged with six counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with different child – whether Court or Appeal erred in finding that breach of duty of disclosure did not lead to miscarriage of justice for purpose of s 158(1)(c) Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) because appellant would not have conducted trial differently – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding appellant conceded that non-disclosure did deprive him of opportunity to adduce evidence relating to father – proper approach to ‘miscarriage of justice’ for purposes of s 158(1)(c) Criminal Procedure Act.
Documents*
05/09/2024 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
17/09/2024 Notice of appeal
17/10/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/10/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
07/11/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
14/11/2024 Written submissions (Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth), seeking leave to intervene or to be heard as amicus curiae)
14/11/2024 Written submissions (Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), seeking leave to intervene)
21/11/2024 Reply
04/12/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (AV Recording will not be published)
04/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
04/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
04/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth))
04/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW))
06/12/2024 Amended written submissions (Respondent)
06/12/2024 Amended outline of oral argument (Respondent)
07/05/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Lendlease Corporation Limited ACN 000 226 228 & Anor v. David William Pallas and Julie Ann Pallas as trustees for the Pallas Family Superannuation Fund & Anor
Case No.
S108/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/04/2024 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Bell CJ, Ward P, Gleeson, Leeming and Stern JJA)
Catchwords
Civil procedure – representative proceedings – notices to group members - where appellant is defendant in shareholder class action brought by respondent plaintiffs alleging misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of continuous disclosure obligations – where separate question stated for determination in New South Wales Court of Appeal – whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that Supreme Court of New South Wales does not have power in representative proceeding too approve notice to group members containing notation to effect that upon any settlement, parties or defendant will seek order that group members neither registering nor opting-out shall not be permitted without leave to seek any benefit under settlement – where Court of Appeal authority conflict with Full Federal Court authority on the question.
Documents*
08/08/2024 Determination
22/08/2024 Notice of appeal
12/09/2024 Written submissions (Appellants)
12/09/2024 Chronology (Appellants)
19/09/2024 Written submissions (Respondents)
10/10/2024 Written submissions (Contradictor)
24/10/2024 Reply
05/11/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
05/11/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
05/11/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
05/11/2024 Outline of oral argument (Contradictor)
07/05/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)
FEL17 v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
Case No.
S107/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
12/09/2023 Federal Court of Australia (Snaden, Abraham and Halley JJ))
Catchwords
Immigration – protection visas – invalid application – where appellant applied for protection visa and was refused by delegate – where AAT affirmed delegate’s decision – where Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection exercised power under s 417(1) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to substitute “another decision” for Tribunal’s decision and granted appellate a three month visitor visa with no further stay condition – where appellate subsequently made second application for protection visa – where delegate found application invalid under s 48A – whether majority of Full Federal Court erred in finding application invalid and barred by s 48A.
Documents*
08/08/2024 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
22/08/2024 Notice of appeal
24/09/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/09/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
21/10/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
11/11/2024 Reply
06/12/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
06/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
09/04/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)