Fortescue Metals Group Limited and Ors v. The Commonwealth of Australia
Case No.
S163/2012
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law (Cth) – Powers of the Commonwealth Parliament – Constitution, s 51(ii) – Taxation – Commonwealth Parliament passed several Acts establishing a 'minerals resource rent tax' – Whether any or all of Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition-Customs) Act 2012 (Cth) s 3, Minerals Resources Rent Tax (Imposition-Excise) Act 2012 (Cth) s 3, Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition-General) Act 2012 (Cth) s 3 (collectively 'the Acts') are invalid to the extent that they discriminate between the States contrary to s 51(ii) of the Constitution.
Constitutional law (Cth) – Constitution, s 99 – Prohibition on Commonwealth preference in trade, commerce or revenue – Whether any or all of the Acts give preference to one State over another.
Constitutional law (Cth) – Melbourne Corporation doctrine – Whether any or all of the Acts discriminate against or place a particular burden upon the operations or activities of the States, as to be beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth.
Constitutional law (Cth) – Constitution, s 91 – Section 91 provides, inter alia, that '[n]othing in this Constitution prohibits a State from granting any aid to or bounty on mining for gold, silver, or other metals' – Whether any or all of the Acts contravene s 91.
Documents
22/06/2012 Writ of summons
22/06/2012 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiffs)
02/08/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney by v/link to Perth)
03/10/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)
05/11/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by v/link to Brisbane and Perth)
30/11/2012 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
21/12/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
21/12/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Queensland intervening)
25/01/2013 Written submissions (Defendant)
08/02/2013 Reply (Plaintiffs)
06/03/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/03/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
08/03/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/08/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Tahiri v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Case No.
M77/2012
Case Information
Catchwords
Citizenship and Migration – Refugees – Family unit – Plaintiff an Afghani citizen – Plaintiff granted protection visa – Plaintiff's mother applied for a refugee and humanitarian visa – Mother's other children included in application – Visa refused due to failure to satisfy, inter alia, public interest criterion 4015 and clause 202.228 of sched 2 to Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – Public interest criterion 4015 requires, inter alia, an assessment that the law of an additional applicant's home country permits their removal and that each person who can lawfully determine where the additional applicant is to live consents to the grant of visa – Father missing for extended period of time – Delegate not satisfied that father was deceased and that certain Afghani court documents were genuine – Proper construction of public interest criterion 4015 – Whether the mother sole person who could lawfully determine where the children should live – Whether there was a breach of the rules of natural justice.
Documents
30/07/2012 Application for an order to show cause
27/09/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
30/10/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
31/10/2012 Special case stated
12/11/2012 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
12/11/2012 Chronology
21/11/2012 Written submissions (Defendant)
26/11/2012 Reply (Plaintiff)
07/12/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
13/12/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon v. Pompano Pty Ltd and Anor
Case No.
B59/2012
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Constitution, Ch III – Vesting of federal jurisdiction in State courts – Criminal Organisation Act 2009 (Q) ('the Act') – The Act creates a scheme whereby the Commissioner of the Police Service ('the Commissioner') may apply to the Supreme Court for a declaration that an organisation is a 'criminal organisation' – The Act contemplates, inter alia, that in any substantive application under the Act that the Commissioner may rely on 'criminal intelligence' which cannot be disclosed to the respondent or the respondent's legal representative – Whether requirements, taken individually or in their cumulative operation, placed on Supreme Court in deciding if an organisation should be declared, repugnant to, or incompatible with, institutional integrity.
Documents
05/10/2012 Hearing (Removal, Canberra by v/link to Brisbane)
24/10/2012 Cause removed
26/10/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)
09/11/2012 Written submissions (Respondents)
23/11/2012 Written submissions (Applicant and the Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
28/11/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
28/11/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
28/11/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
28/11/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
28/11/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
28/11/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory intervening)
30/11/2012 Reply
04/12/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/12/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
14/03/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Sem v. The Queen
Case No.
A32/2012
Related matters:
A30/2012 – Huynh v. The Queen
A31/2012 – Duong v. The Queen
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
31/08/2011 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Doyle CJ, Vanstone J, Peek J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Appeal – Jury misdirection – Applicant and co-accused convicted of murder after trial before jury – Trial judge provided written directions on request from jury – Trial judge’s directions omitted element of joint enterprise liability and failed to apply substituted legal directions to the evidence against the applicant – Whether appellate court able to conclude no substantial miscarriage of justice.
Documents
02/10/2012 Application for special leave to appeal
17/10/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by v/link to Adelaide)
02/11/2012 Written submissions (Applicant)
02/11/2012 Chronology
15/11/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
28/11/2012 Reply
05/12/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
06/12/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
13/03/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Duong v. The Queen
Case No.
A31/2012
Related matters:
A30/2012 – Huynh v. The Queen
A32/2012 – Sem v. The Queen
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
31/08/2011 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Doyle CJ, Vanstone J, Peek J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Appeal – Jury misdirection – Applicant and co-accused convicted of murder after trial before jury – Trial judge provided written directions on request from jury – Trial judge’s directions omitted element of joint enterprise liability and failed to apply substituted legal directions to the evidence against the applicant – Whether appellate court able to conclude no substantial miscarriage of justice.
Documents
28/09/2012 Application for special leave to appeal
17/10/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by v/link to Adelaide)
12/11/2012 Written submissions (Applicant)
15/11/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/11/2012 Chronology (Applicant)
23/11/2012 Reply
05/12/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
06/12/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
13/03/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)