Plaintiff M76/2013 v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Ors
Case No.
M76/2013
Case Information
Catchwords
Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity - plaintiff's applied for refugee protection under non-statutory Refugee Status Assessment - Minister's delegate found plaintiff to be a refugee - transferred to community detention subsequently Department informed plaintiff she would not satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4002 and not eligible for permanent visa as result of adverse ASIO risk assessment - whether detention of plaintiff is not for purpose authorised by or under ss189 &196 Migration Act - whether ss189 and 196 invalid.
Documents
05/07/2013 Application for an order to show cause
10/07/2013 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
11/07/2013 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)
26/07/2013 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
01/08/2013 Special Case Stated
09/08/2013 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
23/08/2013 Written submissions (Defendants)
28/08/2013 Reply
04/09/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
12/12/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Unions NSW and Ors v. State of New South Wales
Case No.
S70/2013
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Limitation on State legislative power – Implied freedom of political communication on governmental and political matters – Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW) (“the EFED Act”) – s 96D of the EFED Act prohibits political donations other than by individuals on the electoral roll – Whether s 96D of the Act impermissibly burdens the implied freedom and is therefore invalid – Whether ss 95F, 95G(6) and 95I of the EFED Act impermissibly burden the implied freedom and are therefore invalid.
Constitutional law – Limitation on State legislative power – Implied freedom of association – Whether s 96D of the EFED Act impermissibly burdens a freedom of association provided for in the Commonwealth Constitution.
Constitutional law – State constitutions – Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) (“the Constitution Act”) – Whether ss 7A and 7B of the Constitution Act give rise to an entrenched protection of freedom of communication on New South Wales State government and political matters – If so, whether s 96D or ss 95F, 95G(6) and 95I of the EFED Act impermissibly burden the implied freedom and are therefore invalid.
Constitutional law – Inconsistency – s 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution – Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) (“the CEA Act”) – Whether s 96D is invalid under s 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution because it is inconsistent with ss 327 or Part XX of the CEA Act.
Documents
08/04/2013 Writ of summons
15/05/2013 Hearing (Single Justice, Perth v/link to Sydney)
25/07/2013 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
12/08/2013 Consent order for directions
12/08/2013 Special case stated
18/09/2013 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
18/09/2013 Chronology
09/10/2013 Written submissions (Defendant)
16/10/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
16/10/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
16/10/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
18/10/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Queensland intervening)
23/10/2013 Reply
05/11/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/11/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
18/12/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd & Ors v. Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited & Ors
Case No.
S118/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/12/2012 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Campbell JA, Macfarlan JA, Sackville AJA)
Catchwords
Civil procedure – Discovery – Privilege – Documents upon which legal professional or client legal privilege attached inadvertently disclosed to the other side – Whether such inadvertent disclosure has the effect of waiving privilege.
Civil procedure – Discovery – Confidential information – Whether the only basis on which the respondents could be prohibited from using the documents, or required to return the documents, was dependent on whether the circumstances on which they were communicated to or obtained by the respondents were such as to impose an obligation of conscience on the respondents – Whether an obligation of conscience could be imposed on the respondents in the circumstances.
Documents
07/06/2013 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
21/06/2013 Notice of appeal
12/07/2013 Written submissions (Appellants)
12/07/2013 Chronology (Appellants)
09/08/2013 Written submissions (Respondents)
23/08/2013 Reply
04/10/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/11/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Daly v. Thiering and Ors
Case No.
S115/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
20/02/2013 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (McColl JA, Macfarlan JA, Hoeben JA)
Catchwords
Statutes – Statutory construction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of s 130A of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) (“the MAC Act”) and s 6(1) of the Lifetime Care and Support Act 2006 (NSW) (“the LCS Act”) – Whether s 130A of the MAC Act provides that the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme is responsible for the provision of all reasonable and necessary treatment and care required by participants – Or whether s 130A of the MAC Act provides that compulsory third party insurers are required to pay damages for voluntarily provided care.
Documents
07/06/2013 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
19/06/2013 Notice of appeal
27/06/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
27/06/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
18/07/2013 Written submissions (Third Respondent)
02/08/2013 Written submissions (First and Second Respondents)
15/08/2013 Reply
03/10/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/11/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Magaming v. The Queen
Case No.
S114/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/02/2013 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Bathurst CJ, Allsop P, McClellan CJ at CL, Hall J, Bellew J)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Criminal law – Mandatory minimum sentences – Appellant convicted of people smuggling contrary to s 233C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) – s 236B of the Act prescribed a mandatory minimum penalty of 5 years imprisonment – Whether s 236B of the Act requires the exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth in a manner inconsistent with its nature – Whether s 236B(3) of the Act when read with ss 233A(1) and 233C(1) authorises the executive government to direct the outcome of the exercise of the court’s federal jurisdiction to sentence offenders – Whether s 236B(3) is therefore invalid as contrary to Ch III of the Constitution.
Documents
07/06/2013 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
17/06/2013 Notice of appeal
12/07/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
12/07/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
02/08/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
02/08/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
06/08/2013 Written submissions (Australian Human Rights Commission seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae)
09/08/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
09/08/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
09/08/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
16/08/2013 Reply
16/08/2013 Reply to Australian Human Rights Commission's submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
23/08/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
03/09/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
11/10/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)