Plaintiff M64/2015 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
Case No.
M64/2015
Case Information
Catchwords
Migration – Grant or refusal of visas – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) - Where plaintiff is an Australian permanent resident – Where plaintiff applied for a subclass 866 (Protection) visa for his immediate family – Where delegate of defendant refused the Visa Application for plaintiff?s mother because plaintiff?s mother did not satisfy cl 202.222(2) (“clause”) – Whether defendant?s delegate erred by construing the clause to require him to consider Australia?s capacity to take all refugee applicants without considering whether or not there were compelling reasons for giving special consideration to the visa applicants – Whether the delegate erred by having regard to irrelevant considerations – Whether delegate applied policy inconsistent with the Act and the Regulations.
Documents
08/05/2015 Application for an order to show cause
03/06/2015 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
24/06/2015 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
25/08/2015 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
27/08/2015 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
28/08/2015 Special case stated
29/09/2015 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
29/09/2015 Chronology (Plaintiff)
16/10/2015 Written submissions (Defendant)
21/10/2015 Reply (Plaintiff)
06/11/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
17/12/2015 Judgment (Judgment summary)
CGU Insurance Limited v. Blakeley & Ors
Case No.
M221/2015
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/06/2015 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Ashley, Beach & McLeish JJA)
Catchwords
Procedure – Joinder of third parties – Where declaratory relief was sought by first respondent against appellant – Where first respondent was stranger to insurance contract between appellant and second to fifth respondents – Whether Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights and obligations of parties under a contract of insurance where declaration is sought by a third party and the parties to the contract do not intend to pursue any claim relating to their rights or obligations under the contract – Whether such a declaration would bind parties to the contract as a matter of res judicata or finally determine their rights and obligations pursuant to the contract – Whether Court has jurisdiction to make a declaration about the meaning of a contract at the suit of a third party on the grounds of “practical utility”.
Documents
11/09/2015 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
25/09/2015 Notice of appeal
16/10/2015 Written submissions (Appellant)
19/10/2015 Chronology (Appellant )
06/11/2015 Written submissions (First and Second Respondents)
20/11/2015 Reply
09/12/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/02/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Paciocco & Anor v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited
Case No.
M219/2015 & M220/2015
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
8/04/2015 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Besanko J, Middleton J)
Catchwords
Banking and financial institutions – Consumer protection – Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12CB – National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) s 76 and Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) s 8 – Where first appellant was charged 26 late payment fees on two credit card accounts held with respondent – Where there was a disparity between the fee charged and the loss accrued as a consequence of late payment – Whether the terms “unconscionable”, “unfair” and “unjust”, as used in the statutory causes of action available, are intended to extend the common law in respect of standard form consumer contracts – Whether disproportion between the quantum of late payment fees and cost to the respondent associated with late payment gives rise to statutory unconscionability, unjustness or unfairness if the fees were not exorbitant from respondent?s perspective.
Documents
11/09/2015 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
25/09/2015 Notice of appeal
16/10/2015 Written submissions (Appellants M219/2015)
16/10/2015 Written submissions (Appellants M220/2015)
16/10/2015 Chronology (Appellants)
06/11/2015 Written submissions (Respondent M219/2015)
06/11/2015 Written submissions (Respondent M220/2015)
20/11/2015 Reply (Appellants M219/2015)
20/11/2015 Reply (Appellants M220/2015)
04/02/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
05/02/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
27/07/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Coverdale, Valuer-General of the State of Tasmania v. West Coast Council
Case No.
H10/2015
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/02/2015 Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania (Tennent J, Estcourt J, Pearce J)
Catchwords
Real Property – Rates and charges – Where the Valuer-General is required by the Valuation of Land Act 2001 (Tas) (“VLA”) to make valuations of all lands within a valuation district including any Crown lands that are liable to be rated – Where Macquarie Harbour is Crown land within the respondent?s municipality – Whether the sea or seabed is land which the Valuer-General is required to value
Documents
11/09/2015 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne v/link Hobart)
24/09/2015 Notice of appeal
05/10/2015 Submitting appearance (Respondent)
16/10/2015 Written submissions (Appellant)
16/10/2015 Chronology (Appellant)
06/11/2015 Written submissions (Contradictor - Attorney-General of the State of Tasmania)
20/11/2015 Reply
01/03/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Hobart)
14/04/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Stewart & Ors v. Ackland
Case No.
C12/2015
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
12/02/2015 Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Court of Appeal) (Penfold J, Walmsley J, Robinson J)
Catchwords
Torts – Negligence – Personal injury – Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (“Act”) ss 5L and 5F - Where respondent was injured while attempting to perform a backward somersault on a jumping pillow at an amusement park operated by appellant – Where there was no signs prohibiting backward somersaults or other inverted manoeuvres – Whether s 5L of the Act requires that the extent of the harm suffered by the plaintiff to be objectively obvious to a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff – Whether and to what extent the principle of personal autonomy applies so as to limit the scope of an occupier’s duty of care in respect of recreation activities.
Documents
11/09/2015 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
25/09/2015 Notice of appeal
16/10/2015 Written submissions (Appellants)
16/10/2015 Chronology (Appellants)
05/11/2015 Written submissions (Respondent)
05/11/2015 Summons seeking to file Notice of Contention out of time (Respondent)
20/11/2015 Reply
02/12/2015 Consent
03/12/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)