CZA19 v. Commonwealth of Australia & Anor
DBD24 v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor
Case Nos.
M66/2024; P29/2024; P34/2024
Case Information
Catchwords - CZA19 v. Commonwealth of Australia & Anor
Constitutional law – immigration detention – whether limit on constitutionally permissible duration of immigration detention identified in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 applies to non-citizen detained under ss 189(1) and 196(1) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for purpose of considering whether to grant the person a visa where no real prospect of removal if person not granted a visa – where first respondent taken into immigration detention in December 2018 – where first respondent applied for protection visa and was refused by delegate – where AAT set aside delegate’s decision and remitted to delegate with direction that substantial grounds for believing first respondent would suffer significant harm if removed to Poland – where following decision in NZYQ first respondent sought habeas corpus and mandamus in Federal Court seeking consideration of visa and declaratory relief regarding lawfulness of detention – where separate question referred for determination in Federal Court – where visa refused by applicant released on bridging visa – whether detention unlawful between November 2022 and release.
Catchwords - DBD24 v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship & Multicultural Affairs & Anor
Constitutional law – immigration detention – whether limit on constitutionally permissible duration of immigration detention identified in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 applies to non-citizen detained under ss 189(1) and 196(1) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for purpose of considering whether to grant the person a visa where no real prospect of removal if person not granted a visa – where first respondent refused safe haven enterprise visa and placed in immigration detention in June 2023 – where in December 2023 AAT set aside delegate’s decision and remitted visa application with direction that first respondent satisfied s 36(2)(aa) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where visa decision not yet made and first respondent remains in immigration detention - where following decision in NZYQ first respondent sought habeas corpus and mandamus in Federal Court seeking consideration of visa – lawfulness of ongoing detention of first respondent.
Documents*
31/07/2024 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane by video connection)
31/07/2024 Order for Removal (CZA19)
31/07/2024 Order for Removal (P29/2024 - DBD24)
02/08/2024 Cause Removed (P29/2024 - DBD24)
05/08/2024 Cause Removed (M66/2024 - CZA19)
22/08/2024 Amended statement of agreed facts (M66/2024 - CZA19)
20/09/2024 Chronology (M66/2024 - CZA19)
23/09/2024 Consolidated written submissions (Applicants - both matters)
23/09/2024 Chronology (P29/2024 - DBD24)
04/10/2024 Written submissions (LPSP seeking leave to intervene - both matters)
18/10/2024 Consolidated written submissions (Respondents - both matters)
22/10/2024 Writ of summons (P34/2024 - DBD24)
25/10/2024 Consolidated reply
29/10/2024 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by remote connection)
04/11/2024 Special Case (P34/2024 - DBD24)
05/11/2024 Order referring Special Case to the Full Court (P34/2024 - DBD24)
14/11/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/11/2024 Outline of oral argument (Applicant in M66/2024, Plaintiff in P34/2024)
14/11/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondents in M66/2024, Defendants in P34/2024)
02/04/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Garland v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor
Case No.
P20/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
25/08/2023 Federal Court of Australia (Stewart, Feutrill and Hespe JJ)
Catchwords
Immigration – visa cancellation – materiality – whether Full Federal Court erred in holding error by AAT in misconstruing meaning of “vulnerable member of the community” in Direction 90 made under s 499 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) not material to decision to refuse revocation of visa cancellation – whether Full Court erred in approach to materiality in light of LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12.
Documents*
19/10/2023 Application for special leave to appeal
06/09/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Melbourne)
(Includes pronouncement of final orders by consent)
SkyCity Adelaide Pty Ltd v. Treasurer of South Australia & Anor
Case No.
Case no A10/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
22/02/2024 Supreme Court of South Australia (Livesey P, Lovell & Bleby JJA)
Catchwords
Statutes – Interpretation – Principles – Taking into account ordinary meaning of defined term in construing definition – Where appellant and respondent entered casino duty agreement ("CDA)" – Where dispute arose regarding correct interpretation of CDA and duty payable in accordance with it – Where master ordered questions of law be reserved for determination by Court of Appeal – Where parties agreed terms of case stated – Where question one of case stated whether "Converted Credits", being electronic gaming credits arising from conversion of loyalty points by appellant's customers, when played by customers, constitutes “amount received by the Licensee during the period for or in respect of consideration for gambling in the Casino premises" within meaning of "gross gambling revenue" within definition in clause 1.1 of operative terms of CDA – Where Court of Appeal answered "Yes" to question one – Whether Court of Appeal erred in answering "Yes" to question one of case stated, on basis concepts of "gross gambling revenue" and "net gambling revenue" in CDA included value of credits wagered on electronic gambling which had their source in loyalty points given to customers by appellant – Whether ordinary meaning of expression being defined, or part of expression, provides part of context that is properly capable of informing interpretation of words used in definition.
Documents*
06/06/2024 Determination
19/06/2024 Notice of appeal
18/07/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
18/07/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
15/08/2024 Amended written submissions (Respondent)
15/08/2024 Reply
12/09/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Hobart)
12/09/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
12/09/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
16/09/2024 Further written submissions (Appellant)
16/10/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: AUTOMOTIVE INVEST V COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Date: 13 June 2024
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 3h 38m
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: MORGAN & ORS V McMILLAN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS PTY LTD & ANOR
Date: 12 June 2024
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 03m
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.