Blog - 13wentworthselbornechambers
1815
page-template,page-template-blog-large-image,page-template-blog-large-image-php,page,page-id-1815,page-parent,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,qode-theme-ver-16.8,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_top,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.5.2,vc_responsive
 

Catchwords: MIGRATION – protection visas – appeals from decisions of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – applications for judicial review of decisions of the Immigration Assessment Authority (the “Authority”) – decision by the first respondent refusing application by a father and his son for protection visas – whether the Authority committed jurisdictional error – whether the Authority was reviewing one or two decisions – whether information supplied to Authority ahead of review was “new information” – whether Authority had regard to contentions advanced – whether it was legally unreasonable for the Authority to consider new information in respect of the father but not the son – whether Authority unreasonably failed to consider exercising its power to invite the father to an interview or to otherwise get new information – appeals dismissed ...

Catchwords: MIGRATION – whether the Minister’s exercise of his power under s 46A(2C) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to revoke his determination to allow certain persons (including the appellant) to lodge an application for a Temporary Protection visa or Safe Haven Enterprise visa under s 46A(1) was subject to a requirement of procedural fairness, and if so, whether the appellant was afforded procedural fairness MIGRATION – whether the Minister ‘noting’ and commenting on a Departmental submission about the manner in which an Informed Referral to Status Resolution (IRSR) process would be undertaken by officers of the Department in relation to the appellant constituted a ‘personal procedural decision’ of the Minister – whether the possibility of detention being prolonged is a sufficient interest to engage a duty to afford procedural fairness in conducting the IRSR process – where Minister accepted that, if a duty were owed, the appellant was not afforded procedural fairness ...

Catchwords: Restitution – Unjust enrichment – Work and labour done – Where land owners and builder entered into contract to which Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) applied – Where contract provided for progress payments at completion of stages – Where owners requested, and builder carried out, variations to plans and specifications in contract without giving written notice as required by s 38 of Act – Where owners repudiated contract after builder raised invoice claiming for variations – Where contract terminated by builder's acceptance of owners' repudiation – Whether s 38 of Act applied to limit amount recoverable by builder for variations – Whether builder entitled to recover in restitution as alternative to claim in damages for breach of contract – Whether contract price operated as ceiling on amount recoverable by way of restitution. Words and phrases – "accrued rights", "alternative restitutionary remedy", "common counts", "completed stage", "contract price ceiling", "contractual incentives", "domestic building contract", "failure of basis", "failure of consideration", "limit on recovery", "measure of restitution", "notice", "primary and secondary obligations", "principle of legality", "protective provisions", "qualifying or vitiating factor", "quantum meruit", "quasi-contractual obligation", "repudiation", "restitution", "subjective devaluation", "unjust enrichment", "variations", "work and labour done". ...

Catchwords: Immigration – Refugees – Application for protection visa – Immigration Assessment Authority ("Authority") – Review by Authority under Pt 7AA of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where decision by delegate of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse protection visa referred to Authority for review – Where Secretary of Department of Immigration and Border Protection gave Authority documents and information – Where Secretary notified Authority that s 473GB applied to documents and information – Where s 473GB(3) conferred discretions on Authority, upon notification, to have regard to matter in document or to information and to disclose matter in document or information to referred applicant – Where documents and information not disclosed to referred applicant during review – Where fact of notification not disclosed to referred applicant during review – Whether procedural fairness required Authority to disclose fact of notification to referred applicant. Administrative law – Judicial review – Jurisdictional error – Procedural fairness – Where Div 3 of Pt 7AA, s 473GA and s 473GB provided exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule in relation to reviews by Authority – Whether implied obligation of procedural fairness precluded. Words and phrases – "disclosure", "document or information", "exclusion of procedural fairness", "exhaustive statement", "fact of notification", "natural justice hearing rule", "notification". ...

Catchwords: Companies – Shares – Implied prohibition against financial assistance by company to acquire shares in company – Meaning of "financial assistance" – Where s 260A(1) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that company may financially assist a person to acquire shares in the company only if giving the assistance does not materially prejudice the interests of the company or its shareholders, or the company's ability to pay its creditors – Where appellant companies' constitutions contained pre-emption clause which provided that, before a shareholder could transfer shares of a particular class, those shares must first be offered to existing shareholders of that class in proportion to the number of shares of that class already held by that shareholder – Where sole shareholder of one shareholder company entered into agreements for sale of shares – Where appellant companies claimed that agreements breached pre-emptive rights provisions – Where injunction sought under s 1324 of Corporations Act to restrain appellant companies from prosecuting proceedings in relation to pre‑emptive rights on basis that proceedings contravened the prohibition against financial assistance in s 260A(1) – Whether funding by company of legal proceedings directed at compelling one shareholder to offer shares to other shareholders is financial assistance – Whether the companies should be enjoined from continuing legal proceedings at their expense to vindicate alleged breach of pre-emptive rights. Words and phrases – "acquisition of shares", "creditors", "financial assistance", "implied prohibition against financial assistance", "injunction", "material prejudice", "power to enforce company constitution", "pre-emptive rights", "shareholders". ...