Automotive Invest Pty Limited v. Commissioner of Taxation
Case No.
S170/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
11/08/2023 Federal Court of Australia (Logan J, Wheelahan J, Hespse J)
Catchwords
Taxation – Luxury car tax – Goods and services tax – A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) (“LCT Act”) – Where appellant operated business called “Gosford Classic Car Museum” – Where museum displayed motor vehicles – Where displayed motor vehicles also generally available for sale and were trading stock – Where LCT Act is single stage tax imposed on supply or importation of “luxury cars” where value exceeds “luxury car tax threshold” – Proper test for non-application of LCT Act – Whether LCT Act to be read and construed by reference to underlying legislative policy – Whether whole of s 9-5(1) determinative of whether appellant subject to increasing adjustment under charging provisions in ss 15-30(3)(c) and 15-35(3)(c) – Whether Full Court majority erred in concluding because LCT Act does not define “retail” sale there was no basis for importing into s 9-5(1)(a) “the idea of taking only a ‘retail sale’”.
Documents
07/12/2023 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
21/12/2023 Notice of appeal
01/02/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/02/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
29/02/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
21/03/2024 Reply
13/06/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/06/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
13/06/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
16/10/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
MDP v. The King
Case No.
B72/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
27/06/2023 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Mullins P, Morrison JA, Henry J)
Catchwords
Evidence – Propensity evidence – Miscarriage of justice – Where appellant convicted of various child sexual assault and domestic violence offences against former partner’s daughter – Where evidence included evidence from complainant’s sister that appellant smacked complainant on bottom – Where trial judge directed jury if they accepted bottom slapping evidence was true, and that it displayed sexual interest of appellant in complainant beyond reasonable doubt, they could use it to reason that it was more likely that offences occurred – Where Court of Appeal found bottom slapping evidence did not meet test for admissibility of propensity evidence – Where Court of appeal found evidence admissible under s 132B of Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) (“evidence of domestic violence”) – Whether Court of Appeal erred holding that no miscarriage of justice occurred when evidence inadmissible as propensity evidence was nonetheless left to jury to be used as propensity evidence.
Documents*
07/12/2023 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
21/12/2023 Notice of appeal
30/01/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
30/01/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
01/03/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
28/03/2024 Written submissions (Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth), seeking leave to intervene or to be heard as amicus curiae)
28/03/2024 Written submissions (Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), seeking leave to intervene)
18/04/2024 Reply
04/06/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) - VACATED
04/06/2024 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra and by video-connection)
04/06/2024 Order of Gageler CJ
14/06/2024 Notice of contention (Respondent)
14/06/2024 Amended notice of appeal (Appellant)
19/07/2024 Supplementary written submissions (Appellant)
16/08/2024 Supplementary written submissions (Respondent)
16/08/2024 Supplementary written submissions (Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth), intervening)
16/08/2024 Supplementary written submissions (Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), intervening)
13/09/2024 Supplementary reply (Appellant)
02/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
03/12/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
03/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
03/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth), intervening)
03/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), intervening)
Commonwealth of Australia v. Yunupingu (on behalf of the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group) & Ors
Case No.
D5/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
22/05/2023 Federal Court of Australia (Mortimer CJ, Moshinsky & Banks-Smith JJ)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Constitution, s 51(xxxi) – Acquisition of property on just terms – Extinguishment of native title – Where principal proceeding is application for compensation under Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) for alleged effects of grants or legislative acts on native title in period after Northern Territory became territory of Commonwealth in 1911 and before enactment of Northern Territory Self-Government Act 1978 (Cth) – Whether Full Court erred by failing to find that just terms requirement contained in s 51(xxxi) of Constitution does not apply to laws enacted pursuant to s 122 of Constitution, including Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910 (Cth) and Ordinances made thereunder – Whether Wurridjal v Commonwealth (2009) 237 CLR 309 should be re-opened – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find that, on facts set out in appellant’s statement of claim, neither vesting of property in all minerals on or below surface of land in claim area in Crown, nor grants of special mineral leases capable of amounting to acquisitions of property under s 51(xxxi) of Constitution because native title inherently susceptible to valid exercise of Crown’s sovereign power to grant interests in land and to appropriate to itself unalienated land for Crown purposes.
Native title – Extinguishment – Reservations of minerals – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find that reservation of “all minerals” from grant of pastoral lease “had the consequence of creating rights of ownership” in respect of minerals in Crown, such that Crown henceforth had right of exclusive possession of minerals and could bring an action for intrusion.
Documents
19/10/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
01/11/2023 Notice of appeal
02/11/2023 Notice of Constitutional Matter (Appellant)
13/11/2023 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video-connection)
28/03/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
28/03/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
15/04/2024 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
15/04/2024 Written submissions (Thirty-Fourth Respondent)
15/04/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening)
27/05/2024 Written submissions (First Respondent)
27/05/2024 Written Submissions (Twenty-Fifth to Twenty-Eighth Respondents)
27/05/2024 Written Submissions (Twenty-Ninth and Thirty-Second Respondents)
27/05/2024 Notice of Constitutional Matter (Twenty-Ninth and Thirty-Second Respondents)
11/06/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory, intervening)
01/07/2024 Reply
15/07/2024 Second Notice of Constitutional Matter (Appellant)
07/08/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Darwin)
07/08/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
08/08/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Darwin)
08/08/2024 Outline of oral argument (Thirty-Fourth Respondent)
08/08/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening)
08/08/2024 Outline of oral argument (Second Respondent)
08/08/2024 Outline of oral argument (Twenty-Ninth and Thirty-Second Respondents)
08/08/2024 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
09/08/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Darwin)
09/08/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory, intervening)
09/08/2024 Outline of oral argument (Twenty-Fifth to Twenty-Eighth Respondents)
12/03/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTRUAL AFFAIRS V MCQUEEN
Date: 14 December 2023
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1h 58m
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: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ABORIGINAL AREAS PROTECTION AUTHORITY V DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL PARKS & ANOR
Date: 13 December 2023
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 47m
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.