Benbrika v. Minister for Home Affairs & Anor
Case No.
Case no M90/2022
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Cessation of Australian citizenship – Where s 36D of Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) provided Minister for Home Affairs may make determination that person ceases to be Australian citizen if satisfied, among other matters, that person convicted of specified offences in s 36D(5) and that it contrary to public interest for person to remain Australian citizen – Where applicant citizen of Algeria and Australia – Where applicant convicted of offences under ss 102.3(1) (intentionally being member of terrorist organisation), 102.2(1) (intentionally directing activities of terrorist organisation) and 101.4(1) (possession of thing connected with preparation for terrorist act) of Criminal Code (Cth) – Where provisions s 36D(5) that enlivened power to make determination under s 36D included offences against ss 102.3(1), 102.2(1) and 101.4(1) of Criminal Code – Where Minister determined, pursuant to s 36D(1), that applicant ceased to be Australian citizen – Whether s 36D contrary to Ch III of Constitution – Whether s 36D invalid for conferring upon Minister exclusively judicial function of adjudging and punishing criminal guilt.
Documents
07/12/2022 Order for Removal (Single Justice)
13/12/2022 Cause removed from the Federal Court of Australia
23/02/2022 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video connection)
01/03/2023 Special Case Stated
06/04/2023 Written submissions (Applicant)
06/04/2023 Chronology (Applicant)
02/05/2023 Written submissions (Respondents)
16/05/2023 Reply
14/06/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/06/2023 Outline of oral argument (Applicant)
14/06/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
01/11/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Jones v. Commonwealth of Australia & Ors
Case No.
Case no B47/2022
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Powers of Commonwealth Parliament – Power to make laws with respect to naturalisation and aliens – Cessation of Australian citizenship – Where s 34(2) of Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) ("2007 Citizenship Act") provides Minister for Home Affairs may revoke person's Australian citizenship where, relevantly, person has, after making application to become Australian citizen, been convicted of serious offence (s 34(2)(b)(ii)), and Minister satisfied that it contrary to public interest for person to remain Australian citizen – Where, by operation of transitional provisions, s 34(2)(b)(ii) applies as if it also referred to person's conviction, at any time after person made application for certificate Australian citizenship under Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth), of offence that person committed at any time before grant of certificate – Where plaintiff citizen of United Kingdom by birth and became Australian citizen in December 1988 – Where plaintiff convicted of offences contrary to Queensland laws – Where Minister revoked plaintiff's citizenship, relying on s 34(2)(b)(ii) of 2007 Citizenship Act – Whether s 34(2)(b)(ii) supported by s 51(xix) of Constitution.
Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Whether s 34(2)(b)(ii) contrary to Ch III of Constitution – Whether s 34(2)(b)(ii) invalid for conferring upon Minister exclusively judicial function of adjudging and punishing criminal guilt.
Documents
10/10/2022 Writ of Summons
10/10/2022 Notice of Constitutional Matter (Plaintiff)
23/02/2023 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video connection)
20/03/2023 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video connection)
03/04/2023 Order referring matter to the Full Court (Single Justice)
04/04/2023 Special Case Stated
12/04/2023 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
02/05/2023 Written submissions (Defendants)
17/05/2023 Amended Reply
14/06/2023 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)
14/06/2023 Outline of oral argument (Defendants)
15/06/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
01/11/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Karpik v. Carnival PLC & Anor
Case No.
Case no S25/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
02/09/2022 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Rares & Derrington JJ)
Catchwords
Contract – Construction – Class action waiver clause – Exclusive jurisdiction clause – Where representative proceedings brought under Pt IVA of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ("FCA Act") against owner of cruise ship, Ruby Princess – Where class consisted of parties to either Australian terms and conditions, US terms and conditions or UK terms and conditions – Where US terms and conditions contained class action waiver clause, exclusive jurisdiction clause, and choice of law clause – Where Federal Court asked to determine whether US terms and conditions incorporated into Mr Ho’s contract and whether claim should in effect be stayed – Proper approach to construction of clauses.
Documents*
17/03/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video-connection)
30/03/2023 Notice of appeal
05/05/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
05/05/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
19/05/2023 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia intervening and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, seeking leave to intervene)
02/06/2023 Written submissions (Respondents)
23/06/2023 Reply
03/08/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
03/08/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
03/08/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
03/08/2023 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia intervening and ACCC seeking leave to intervene)
04/08/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
18/08/2023 Supplementary written submissions (Respondents)
06/12/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Real Estate Tool Box Pty Ltd & Ors v. Campaigntrack Pty Ltd & Anor
Case No.
Case no S16/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
06/07/2022 Federal Court of Australia (Greenwood; Cheeseman and McElwaine JJ)
Catchwords
Copyright – Infringement – Authorisation – Where s 36(1) of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) provides copyright infringed by person who, not being owner of copyright, and without licence of owner, does in Australia, or "authorizes" doing in Australia of, any act comprised in copyright – Where s 36(1A) of Copyright Act sets out matters that must be taken into account in determining s 36(1) – Where Full Court found first, second, fifth and sixth applicants infringed copyright in works by authorising infringements of second respondent and other developers in developing system, and by authorising infringements of users in using system – Where Full Court found third and fourth respondents infringed copyright in works by authorising infringements of second respondent – Proper approach to construction of "authorizes" in s 36(1) of Copyright Act – Whether finding of authorisation of infringement of copyright under s 36(1) of Copyright Act requires mental element – Whether authorisation under s 36(1) of Copyright Act may be imposed on persons by imputing to them indifference on account of failure to inquire about supposed infringement.
Documents*
17/02/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
28/02/2022 Notice of appeal
11/04/2023 Written submissions (Appellants)
11/04/2023 Chronology (Appellants)
09/05/2023 Written submissions (First Respondent)
30/05/2023 Reply
01/08/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
01/08/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
01/08/2023 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
06/12/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Huxley v. The Queen
Case No.
Case no B19/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23 April 2021 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Fraser, Morrison and Mullins JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal practice – Jury direction – Witness evidence – Joint trial – Where appellant convicted by jury for murder after being charged on joint indictment which charged three others – Where direction given to jury in relation to witness' evidence - Where witness' evidence central to co-accused's case and relevant to appellant's – Where direction made that jury should only act upon witness' evidence if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that evidence truthful, reliable and accurate – Whether jury direction, that witness' evidence in joint trial can only be used by jury if satisfied evidence of witness truthful, reliable and accurate beyond reasonable doubt, constituted miscarriage of justice.
Documents*
17/03/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video-connection)
29/03/2023 Notice of appeal
12/05/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
12/05/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
09/06/2023 Written submissions (Respondent)
30/06/2023 Reply
07/09/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/09/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
07/09/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
06/12/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)