Australian Communications and Media Authority v. Today FM (Sydney) Pty Ltd
Case No.
S225/2014
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
14/03/2014 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Robertson J, Griffiths J)
Catchwords
Administrative law –Powers of Australian Communications and Media Authority (“ACMA”) – Respondent held commercial radio broadcasting licence under Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) (“BSA”) – Respondent recorded and broadcast conversation for radio segment – ACMA investigated segment under s 170 of BSA – Investigation concerned whether respondent breached licence condition contained in cl 8(1)(g), Sch 2 of BSA which is engaged where offence is committed against another law – ACMA’s preliminary investigation report found that respondent contravened s 11(1) of Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) – Whether ACMA can only make administrative finding of commission of offence once conviction is recorded by criminal court – Whether ACMA is required to defer enforcement action until after criminal process has concluded – Whether ACMA is bound conclusively in its administrative findings by the outcome of such criminal process.
Constitutional law – Judicial power – Whether ACMA’s conclusion of breach of licence condition involves exercise of judicial power reserved to Ch III courts.
Documents
15/08/2014 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
22/08/2014 Notice of appeal
19/09/2014 Written submissions (Appellant)
19/09/2014 Chronology (Appellant)
10/10/2014 Written submissions (Respondent)
17/10/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia intervening)
17/10/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
17/10/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
17/10/2014 Written submissions (Free TV Australia Limited seeking leave to intervene)
20/10/2014 Written submissions (Commercial Radio Australia Ltd seeking leave to intervene)
20/10/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
24/10/2014 Reply
11/11/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
04/03/2015 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Queensland Nickel Pty Limited v. Commonwealth of Australia
Case No.
B25/2013
Case Information
Catchwords
Plaintiff owns and operates a nickel and cobalt refinery at Yabulu in North Qld - the activity of the production of nickel is an "emissions -intensive trade-exposed" activity identified in Schedule 1 to the Clean Energy Regulations 2011 (Cth) made pursuant to s 145 and s 312 of the Clean Energy Act 2011 (Cth) - whether the effect of the Clean Energy Regulations is to give preference to one State over another State contrary to section 99 of the Constitution.
Documents
16/05/2013 Writ of summons
21/05/2013 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)
20/08/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane v/link Sydney)
24/09/2014 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
29/10/2014 Written submissions (Defendant)
12/11/2014 Reply
05/02/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/04/2015 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Versi v. The Queen
Date: 14 August 2014
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1h 12m
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: Plaintiff S4/2014 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Date: 13 August 2014
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 3h 45m
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: Alphapharm Pty Ltd v. H Lundbeck A/S & Ors
Date: 08 August 2014
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 22m
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.