Pearson v. Commonwealth of Australia & Ors
Case No.
S126/2023
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Usurpation or interference with Commonwealth judicial power – Where plaintiff New Zealand national – Where plaintiff convicted of offences including supply of prohibited drug and sentenced to aggregate term of imprisonment of four years and three months – Where plaintiff's Australian visa cancelled on basis she failed character test in s 501 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and upheld on appeal – Where plaintiff commenced fresh proceeding in original jurisdiction of Federal Court seeking judicial review – Where Full Court held aggregate sentence not "a term of imprisonment" within meaning of s 501(7)(c) and plaintiff released from immigration detention – Where plaintiff re-detained following commencement of Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Act 2023 (Cth) ("Amending Act") – Whether Amending Act invalid usurpation of, or interference with, judicial power of Commonwealth – Whether Amending Act does not operate to validate decision of third defendant because decision not "a thing" done under Migration Act, but "a thing" done under s 43 of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).
Constitutional law – Powers of Commonwealth Parliament – Acquisition of property on just terms – Whether Amending Act invalid acquisition by Commonwealth of plaintiff's right to sue Commonwealth for false imprisonment other than on just terms, contrary to s 51(xxxi) of Constitution.
Documents
10/10/2023 Application for Constitutional or other writs
04/12/2023 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video-connection)
13/02/2024 Special Case
07/03/2024 Order referring special case to the Full Court
26/04/2024 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
26/04/2024 Chronology (Plaintiff)
22/05/2024 Written submissions (First and Second Defendants)
05/06/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory, intervening)
05/06/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening)
05/06/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening)
19/06/2024 Reply
09/10/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/10/2024 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)
09/10/2024 Outline of oral argument (First and Second Defendants)
10/10/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/10/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory, intervening)
10/10/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening)
10/10/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening)
04/12/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
State of New South Wales v. Wojciechowska & Ors
Case No.
S39/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/08/2023 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Mitchelmore JA, Kirk JA, Griffiths AJA)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Judicial Power of Commonwealth – Where first respondent resided in Tasmania – Where first respondent commenced various proceedings in New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") against third and fourth respondents, emanations of State of New South Wales – Where first respondent sought review of various decisions and conduct under Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) ("GIPA Act") and Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) ("PPIP Act") – Where claim included claim for damages under s 52(2)(a) PPIP Act – Where first respondent challenged jurisdiction of Tribunal on basis functions performed by Tribunal when determining administrative review applications under GIPA Act and PPIP Act involved exercise of judicial power – Where Court of Appeal held determining administrative review under GIPA Act did not involve exercise of judicial power – Where Court of Appeal held determination of application for damages under s 55(2)(a) of PPIP Act brought by out-of-state resident would involve Tribunal exercising judicial power of Commonwealth – Whether Burns v Corbett (2018) 265 CLR 304applies to exercise of non-judicial power – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Tribunal, when performing at instance of out-of-State resident claiming damages review of public sector agency conduct under Pt 5 of PPIP Act and Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) exercises Commonwealth judicial power.
Courts – State tribunals – Jurisdiction.
Documents*
07/03/2024 Determination
21/03/2024 Notice of appeal
22/03/2024 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by remote connection)
24/04/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/04/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
22/05/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria, intervening)
22/05/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory, intervening)
22/05/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
22/05/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening)
22/05/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening)
26/06/2024 Written submissions (Amici curiae)
06/09/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, intervening)
06/12/2024 Reply (to amici curiae submissions)
23/01/2025 Written submissions (First Respondent)
05/02/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
05/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
05/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
05/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory, intervening)
05/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening)
05/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening)
05/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria, intervening)
05/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Amici curiae)
06/02/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, intervening)
06/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
The King v. ZT
Case No.
S38/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/09/2023 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Kirk JA, Fagan J, Sweeney J)
[2023] NSWCCA 241
Catchwords
Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Unreasonable verdict – Joint criminal enterprise – Where respondent found guilty at trial of party to murder – Where case against him founded upon series of admissions made as to involvement in killing – Where respondent's accounts numerous and inconsistent – Where respondent successfully appealed conviction to Court of Criminal Appeal on ground jury's verdict unreasonable – Where Court of Criminal Appeal majority found admissions not sufficiently reliable to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal majority erred in concluding jury enjoyed no relevant or significant advantage over appellate court – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal majority erred in its application of test in M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.
Documents
07/03/2024 Determination
21/03/2024 Notice of appeal
02/05/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/05/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
30/05/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
20/06/2024 Reply
15/11/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (AV Recording will not be published)
15/11/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
15/11/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
21/11/2024 Redacted Written submissions (Appellant)
21/11/2024 Redacted Chronology (Appellant)
21/11/2024 Redacted Reply
22/11/2024 Redacted Written submissions (Respondent)
22/11/2024 Redacted Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
02/04/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Steven Moore (a pseudonym) v. The King
Case No.
M23/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/09/2023 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Kennedy, Walker, Macaulay JJA)
Catchwords
Evidence – Criminal trial – Hearsay – Exclusion of prejudicial evidence – Where appellant charged with seven violent offences and pleaded not guilty – Where appellant accepted he was at complainant's house and engaged in argument, but denied any violence on his part – Where Crown case relies in large part on complainant's account – Where complainant passed away in circumstances unconnected to allegations – Where Crown relied on hearsay rule in s 65 of Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) to adduce representations made by complainant – Where prosecution's notice of intention to adduce hearsay evidence referred to large number of representations by complainant to various people – Where appellant objected to admission of evidence – Where trial judge ruled 67 of 70 previous representations admissible – Where appellant unsuccessfully appealed interlocutory decision to Court of Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal applied wrong standard of review on interlocutory appeal from ruling on admissibility of evidence under s 137 of Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in assessing "danger of unfair prejudice to the accused" of admitting evidence.
Documents
07/03/2024 Determination
20/03/2024 Notice of appeal
18/04/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
18/04/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
09/05/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
16/05/2024 Reply
05/06/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
05/06/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
05/06/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
14/08/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Elisha v. Vision Australia Limited
Case No.
M22/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/11/2023 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (McLeish, Kennedy, Macaulay JJ)
[2023] VSCA 288 and [2023] VSCA 265
Catchwords
Damages – Contract – Breach – Psychiatric injury – Where appellant entered employment contract with respondent – Where during hotel stay while performing his work duties, appellant involved in incident with hotel proprietor – Where appellant's employment terminated for alleged "serious misconduct" – Where appellant developed major depressive disorder, which trial judge found caused by dismissal – Where appellant sued for damages, claiming alleged breaches of due process provision contained in clause 47.5 of Vision Australia Unified Enterprise Agreement 2013 and respondent's "disciplinary procedure" – Where appellant claimed respondent's duty of care extended to discipline and termination procedures – Where at trial, appellant succeeded in contract and failed in negligence – Where Court of Appeal held respondent did not owe alleged duty of care, and affirmed trial judge's finding in respect of contract claim – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding damages for psychiatric injury suffered by appellant not recoverable for breach of contract.
Tort – Negligence – Duty of care owed by employers – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding respondent did not owe duty to take reasonable care to avoid injury to appellant in its implementation of processes leading to and resulting in termination of his employment.
Documents
07/03/2024 Determination
20/03/2024 Notice of appeal
22/04/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
22/04/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
22/05/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
07/06/2024 Reply
16/10/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
16/10/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
16/10/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
11/12/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)