tttttttttt

Orders: 1. The appeal be allowed. 2. The orders made by the primary judge on 11 November 2020 in proceeding VID41/2020 be set aside and in their place, the Court orders that: 2.1 by 4.00pm on 18 August 2021, the First Respondent provide written answers to the interrogatories annexed as Annexure NY1 to the affidavit of Natalie Young dated 9 September 2020; and 2.2 the First Respondent pay the Appellant’s costs of the interlocutory application filed on 10 September 2020. 3. The First Respondent pay the...

Catchwords: Administrative law – Migration – Application for Safe Haven Enterprise Visa ("visa") – Where first delegate of Minister held delegation to make decision under s 65 but not s 501 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to consider plaintiff's application for visa – Where referral process required first delegate to refer plaintiff's application to "Visa Applicant Character Consideration Unit" for character checks – Where second delegate of Minister refused to grant visa on character grounds pursuant to s 501 – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside decision of second delegate and decided that discretion under s 501 should not be exercised to preclude plaintiff's application for visa – Where Minister made personal decision under s 501A(2)(a) to set aside Tribunal's decision and substitute decision to refuse to grant visa – Whether internal departmental processes and policies unlawful – Whether referral process unlawful – Whether public interest criterion 4001 in Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) invalid – Whether Minister came under duty under s 65 to grant visa – Whether second delegate had power to make decision under s 501 – Whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal had power to set aside decision by second delegate – Whether Minister had power to make decision under s 501A(2)(a). High Court – Original jurisdiction – Practice and procedure – Application for constitutional and other writs, injunctions, declarations, and other relief – Where plaintiff brought parallel proceedings concerning same underlying subject matter in original jurisdiction of High Court and by special leave from Federal Court – Where special leave application dismissed – Where plaintiff could have raised many of grounds in special leave application – Where grounds would have been dismissed – Whether plaintiff's rights of appeal have been exhausted – Whether abuse of process – Anshun estoppel – Insufficient submissions to determine question – Application for extension of time to make further amendments – Last‑minute application – Inefficiency – Delay. Words and phrases – "amendment application", "binary decision", "character test", "criteria for the grant of a SHEV", "duty under s 65", "extension of time", "last‑minute amendment application", "lengthy delay", "original decision", "policy", "public interest criterion 4001", "referral process", "refusal on character grounds", "satisfaction", "single decision", "unlawful detention", "validly prescribed criterion". ...

Catchwords: Evidence – Privilege against self-incrimination – Where appellant obtained ex parte orders freezing worldwide assets of respondent – Where disclosure orders made in connection with freezing orders required disclosure of worldwide assets – Where respondent objected to disclosure of certain information on basis that it may tend to self-incriminate – Where respondent prepared privilege affidavit under s 128A(2) of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Whether information in privilege affidavit could be disclosed to parties under s 128A(6) – Whether interests of justice required disclosure of information in privilege affidavit. Words and phrases – "certificate", "commission of a foreign offence", "disclosure order", "freezing order", "interests of justice", "may tend to prove", "onus of proof", "privilege affidavit", "privilege against self-incrimination", "reasonable grounds for an objection". ...

Catchwords: Industrial law (Cth) – Contract of employment – Nature of casual employment – Where first respondent employed by appellant labour-hire company under series of six employment contracts or "assignments" – Where first respondent treated as casual employee – Where first respondent not paid entitlements owed by employers to non‑casual employees – Where first respondent claimed to have been other than a casual employee – Where first respondent's work pattern followed established shift structure fixed long in advance by roster – Where employment contract provided that employment was on "assignment-by-assignment basis" – Where employment contract provided that appellant under no obligation to offer first respondent further assignments – Whether there existed firm advance commitment as to duration of first respondent's employment or days (or hours) first respondent will work – Whether first respondent employed as casual employee. Words and phrases – "annual leave", "assignment-by-assignment basis", "binding contractual terms", "casual employee", "compassionate leave", "employment contract wholly in writing", "enterprise agreement", "firm advance commitment", "label", "mere expectation of continuing employment", "National Employment Standards", "nature of the employment relationship", "payment for public holidays", "personal/carer's leave", "post-contractual conduct", "regular and systematic basis", "roster". ...

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for orders in the nature of certiorari quashing decision of District Court dismissing an appeal from the Small Claims Division of the Local Court and the decision of the Local Court for jurisdictional error and error of law on the face of the record – where appeal to District Court lies only on basis of lack of jurisdiction or denial of procedural fairness – where applicants contended District Court judge misapprehended the meaning of “lack of jurisdiction”, failed to make a bona fide assessment of the grounds of appeal and failed to give adequate reasons – where applicants’ challenge to the Local Court decision out of time – where applicants contended that Local Court assessor failed to take into account “jurisdictional facts”, gave judgment notwithstanding notice of an alleged counter claim or set-off and otherwise invalidly exercised jurisdiction ...

Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE – professional negligence – solicitors – where appellant law firm was retained to advise the respondent as to his rights in a family law partnership – whether appellant failed to give competent advice to the respondent about the manner and circumstances of the exercise of a put option granted by a put and call option agreement forming part of the partnership documents – breach of retainer and concurrent duty of care NEGLIGENCE – professional negligence – causation – factual causation – where respondent would have exercised put option had he been properly advised of his rights – where failure to give competent advice caused loss CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – professional advice – where a dangerously incomplete statement of the respondent’s rights was misleading and deceptive in that it was apt to mislead the respondent into believing that his legal rights were ineffective CONTRACTS – implied terms – terms implied in law – necessity CONTRACTS – implied terms – terms implied in fact – necessary to give business efficacy CONTRACTS – construction – interpretation – calculation of purchase price under formula prescribed in a put and call option agreement APPEALS – damages – where primary judge awarded damages and required an undertaking as to repayment pending the outcome of related proceedings – whether primary judge erred in not assessing damages on a lump sum basis once and for all – whether this Court should itself determine the damages payable on a lump sum basis – approach for correct assessment of damages ...

Catchwords: APPEAL – where applicant incorrectly filed an application for leave to appeal – where, although leave to appeal was not required, an extension of time in which to bring the appeal was required – no satisfactory explanation provided for delay in commencing appeal proceedings – where no injustice would be suffered by the applicant if an extension of time to appeal was refused – application for extension of time to appeal refused ...

Catchwords: SOCIAL SECURITY – appeal from the primary judge’s order dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Secretary to apply an amount of family tax benefit due to the appellant in partial discharge of the appellant’s indebtedness to the Commonwealth – where the appellant’s entitlement to family tax benefit arose from the Secretary’s failure to give the required notice to the appellant prior to the recovery of overpayments of that benefit – where the appellant’s indebtedness to the Commonwealth arose from his receipt of parenting payments to which he was not entitled under the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) – whether s 84A of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (Administration Act) authorised the set off of the appellant’s entitlement against his debt to the Commonwealth – whether the primary judge erred in failing to find that s 84A did not allow such set off – in the circumstances, s 84A does authorise such set off – no error by the primary judge was demonstrated. SOCIAL SECURITY – whether the Secretary’s decision to set off the appellant’s entitlement against the debt was made for an improper purpose, namely because it was prevented by s 86 of the Administration Act as previously in force or because the invalid recovery of overpayments giving rise to the entitlement was not recoverable – whether the primary judge erred in failing to find an improper purpose – the decision was not for an improper purpose – no error by the primary judge was demonstrated. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the appellant submitted to the court post-hearing submissions and a proposed further amended notice of appeal without leave – whether the court should entertain such submissions and proposed notice of appeal – the submissions and proposed further amended notice of appeal should not be entertained. HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – application for recusal of a judge on the basis of apprehended bias – where the judge heard two other matters involving the appellant or the appellant’s former spouse – in the circumstances, no basis for recusal. ...

Loading new posts...
No more posts