Harvey & Ors v. Minister for Primary Industry and Resources & Ors
Case No.
D9/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/04/2022 Federal Court of Australia (Jagot, Charlesworth and O’Bryan JJ)
Catchwords
Statutes – Interpretation – Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), s 24MD(6B)(b) – Meaning of "right to mine" – Meaning of "infrastructure facility" – Where first respondent intended to grant mineral lease (ML 29881) to third respondent under s 40(1)(b)(ii) of Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT) – Where land subject to proposed lease would be used for construction of "dredge spoil emplacement area" to deposit dredged material from loading facility located on adjacent land subject to mineral lease already held by third respondent –Whether proposed grant of ML 29881 is future act within s 24MD(6B)(b) of Native Title Act, being creation of right to mine for sole purpose of construction of infrastructure facility associated with mining.
Documents*
16/12/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
22/12/2022 Notice of appeal
03/02/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
03/02/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
03/03/2023 Written submissions (First and Second Respondents)
03/03/2023 Written submissions (Third Respondent)
24/03/2023 Reply
05/09/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
05/09/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
05/09/2023 Outline of oral argument (First and Second Respondents)
04/09/2023 Outline of oral argument (Third Respondent)
07/02/2024 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: LAUNDY HOTELS (QUARRY) PTY LIMITED V DYCO HOTELS PTY LIMITED ATF THE PARRAS FAMILY TRUST & ORS
Date: 09 December 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 24m
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: ENT19 V MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS & ANOR
Date: 08 December 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 0h 17m
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: Mitchell v The King; Rigney v The King; Carver v The King; Tenhoopen v The King
Date: 06 December 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 59m
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.
Qantas Airways Limited & Anor v. Transport Workers Union of Australia
Case No.
S153/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
04/05/2022 Federal Court of Australia (Bromberg, Rangiah and Bromwich JJ)
Catchwords
Industrial law – Adverse action – Workplace right – Whether prohibition s 340(1)(b) only prohibits adverse action taken to prevent exercise of presently existing "workplace right" – Where first appellant made decision to outsource ground operations at 10 airports to third party providers – Where primary judge found outsourcing decision contravened s 340(1)(b) of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – Where, at time of outsourcing decision, one relevant enterprise agreement had not yet reached its nominal expiry date and no process of bargaining for replacement had been initiated, and another enterprise agreement had reached nominal expiry date and process of bargaining had commenced, but no process for protected industrial action been initiated – Where primary judge held first appellant contravened s 340(1)(b), finding first appellant had not discharged reverse onus under s 360(1) of establishing first appellant had not made outsourcing decision to prevent affected employees from exercising workplace rights to organise and engage in protected industrial action.
Documents*
18/11/2022 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
02/12/2022 Notice of appeal
20/01/2023 Written submissions (Appellants)
20/01/2023 Chronology (Appellants)
17/02/2023 Written submissions (Respondent)
03/03/2023 Written submissions (Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations intervening)
10/03/2023 Reply (Appellants)
09/05/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/05/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
09/05/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
09/05/2023 Outline of oral argument (Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations intervening)
10/05/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/09/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)