Minister for Home Affairs of the Commonwealth and Ors v. Zentai and Ors
Case No.
P56/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/08/2011 Federal Court of Australia (North, Besanko & Jessup JJ)
Catchwords
Extradition — Permissible circumstances for surrender — Hungarian Military Judge issued warrant for arrest of first respondent — Warrant alleged that during World War II first respondent committed war crime contrary to s 165 of Criminal Code of Hungary — Australian magistrate determined first respondent eligible for extradition — Federal Court affirmed magistrate's decision and Full Federal Court dismissed appeal — Whether extradition pursuant to Treaty on Extradition Between Australia and the Republic of Hungary ("Treaty") permitted only where actual offence for which extradition sought an offence in requesting state at time conduct constituting offence took place — Whether extradition under Treaty permitted where conduct constituting offence for which extradition sought an offence in requesting state at time conduct took place — Treaty, art 2(5)(a) — Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), s 22(3)(e)(i) and (iii).
Documents
09/12/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
21/12/2011 Notice of appeal
23/12/2011 Notice of contention
23/12/2011 Written submissions (Appellants)
23/12/2011 Chronology (Appellants)
13/01/2012 Submitting appearance (Second and Third Respondents)
19/01/2012 Notice of Constitutional Matter
10/02/2012 Written submissions (First Respondent)
17/02/2012 Reply
24/02/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of South Australia intervening)
28/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
15/08/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Plaintiff S51/2011 v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Anor
Case No.
S51/2011
Related matters:
S10/2011 - Plaintiff S10/2011 v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S43/2011 - Kaur v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S49/2011 - Plainitff S49/2011 v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
Case Information
Catchwords
Citizenship and migration — Migration — Ministerial discretion — Procedural fairness — Section 417 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Act") empowers first defendant ("Minister") to substitute decision of Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") made under s 415 of Act with another decision more favourable to an applicant, if Minister thinks it is "in the public interest to do so" — Section 48B of Act empowers Minister to determine that s 48A of Act does not apply to prevent application for protection visa made by non-citizen, if Minister thinks it is "in the public interest to do so" — Whether Minister and or second defendant through his officers failed to accord procedural fairness to plaintiff in the s 48B decision and the s 417 decision by taking into consideration certain matters without providing plaintiff with opportunity to know about or comment on those matters — Whether Minister and or second defendant through his officers failed to apply Minister's Guidelines correctly by taking into account irrelevant considerations or failing to take into account relevant considerations — Whether jurisdictional error occurred irrespective of privative clause in s 474(2) of Act.
Documents
01/02/2011 Application for an order to show cause
27/05/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
07/07/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
08/07/2011 Amended Application for an order to show cause
29/07/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
01/09/2011 Amended Application for an order to show cause
12/10/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
10/11/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
21/11/2011 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
22/11/2011 Chronology (Plaintiff)
09/12/2011 Written submissions (First and Second Defendants)
23/12/2011 Reply
23/12/2011 Chronology (First and Second Defendants)
23/12/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
04/01/2012 Amended Notice of Constitutional Matter
01/02/2012 Reply to intervener (Plaintiff)
07/02/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)
08/02/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
09/02/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd v. Chameleon Mining NL (Receivers and Managers Appointed) and Ors
Case No.
S362/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/03/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Giles, Hodgson and Young JJA)
Catchwords
Corporations law — Financial products — Litigation funding — Parties entered into funding deed under which applicant ("ILP") was to fund proceedings brought by first respondent ("CHM") ("Funding Deed") — Clause 4 of Funding Deed provided for early termination fee in event of change of control of CHM — CHM granted fixed and floating charge in favour of ILP as security for payment of moneys owed ("Charge") — CHM entered agreement with second respondent, Cape Lambert Resources Ltd ("CLR"), under which CLR provided standby facility to CHM in exchange for charge over CHM's assets — CHM notified ILP that it disputed ILP's entitlement to payment under funding deed on basis that ILP engaged in unlicensed financial services business in Australia and notified rescission of funding deed under s 925A of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("Act) — ILP appointed receivers to CHM under Charge — Primary judge upheld ILP's entitlement to engage in litigation funding absent an Australian Financial Services License ("AFSL") and its right to early termination fee but dismissed claim to further payment — Whether Funding Deed a financial product within meaning of ss 762A-762C, 763A and 763C of Act as facility through which, or through acquisition of which, a person manages financial risk — If Funding Deed a statutory financial product, whether reasonable to assume that any financial product purpose of Funding Deed an incidental purpose such that Funding Deed not a financial product pursuant to s 763E of Act — If Funding Deed a statutory financial product, whether a credit facility within meaning of s 765A(h)(i) of Act and regs 7.1.06(1) and (3) of Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) and consequently excluded from being a financial product — Whether litigation funder required to comply with provisions of Act engaged by issuing of financial product, including requirement to obtain AFSL pursuant to s 911A of Act — Whether Funding Deed validly rescinded by CHM pursuant to s 925A(1) of Act.
Documents
28/10/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
10/11/2011 Notice of appeal
24/11/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/11/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
15/12/2011 Written submissions (First Respondent)
16/12/2011 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
23/12/2011 Reply
20/06/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/10/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
The National Competition Council v. Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd and Ors
The National Competition Council v. Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd and Ors
Case No.
M45/2011; M46/2011
Related matters:
M155-157/2011 – Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd & Anor v. Australian Competition Tribunal & Ors
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
4/05/2011 Federal Court of Australia (Keane CJ, Mansfield & Middleton JJ)
Catchwords
Competition law — Declared services — Rio Tinto Ltd and associated entities ("Rio") operate Hamersley and Robe railway lines in Pilbara region — The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd ("TPI") applied for declarations to allow third party trains and rolling stock to move along Hamersley and Robe lines — Commonwealth Treasurer declared Hamersley and Robe lines for period of 20 years pursuant to s 44H of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) ("Act") — Australian Competition Tribunal ("Tribunal") made determination, pursuant to s 44K(7) of Act, setting aside Hamersley declaration and varying Robe declaration to ten year period — Tribunal found, inter alia, that Hamersley and Robe lines are natural monopolies, but access would be, by reason of putative benefits associated with construction of alternate railway lines and cost to Rio and therefore national economy, contrary to public interest — Full Court of Federal Court upheld Tribunal's decision in respect of Hamersley line and set aside limited declaration in respect of Robe line — Whether criterion for declaration of service specified in s 44H(4)(b) of Act imposes test of private profitability or test applying economic principles taking into account natural monopoly characteristics — Whether public interest criterion in s 44H(4)(f) of Act requires or permits inquiry into likely net balance of social costs and benefits if declaration made — Whether s 44H of Act confers broad discretion on Minister to conduct social cost-benefit analysis if prescribed matters in s 44H point in favour of declaration being made — Whether Minister's discretion confined to matters within purpose and object of s 44H — Whether open to National Competition Council to recommend Hamersley and Robe line services be subject of declaration under s 44H of Act.
Words and phrases — "uneconomical for anyone to develop another facility to provide the service".
Documents
01/06/2011 Application for special leave to appeal
28/10/2011 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
25/11/2011 Written submissions (Applicant)
28/11/2011 Chronology
15/12/2011 Written submissions (Respondents - Rio Tinto parties)
15/12/2011 Written submissions (Respondents - BHP parties)
16/12/2011 Written submissions (Respondents - Fortescue parties)
22/12/2011 Reply
06/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
08/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/04/2012 Supplementary submissions (Respondents - Rio Tinto parties)
14/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd and Anor v. Australian Competition Tribunal and Ors
Case No.
M155/2011; M156/2011; M157/2011
Related matters:
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
04/05/2011 Federal Court of Australia (Keane CJ, Mansfield & Middleton JJ)
Catchwords
Competition law — Declared services — Rio Tinto Ltd and associated entities ("Rio") operate Hamersley and Robe railway lines in Pilbara region — The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd ("TPI") applied for declarations to allow third party trains and rolling stock to move along Hamersley and Robe lines — Commonwealth Treasurer declared Hamersley and Robe lines for period of 20 years pursuant to s 44H of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) ("Act") — Australian Competition Tribunal ("Tribunal") made determination, pursuant to s 44K(7) of Act, setting aside Hamersley declaration and varying Robe declaration to ten year period — Tribunal found, inter alia, that Hamersley and Robe lines are natural monopolies, but access would be, by reason of putative benefits associated with construction of alternate railway lines and cost to Rio and therefore national economy, contrary to public interest — Full Court of Federal Court upheld Tribunal's decision in respect of Hamersley line and set aside limited declaration in respect of Robe line — Whether criterion for declaration of service specified in s 44H(4)(b) of Act imposes test of private profitability or test applying economic principles taking into account natural monopoly characteristics — Whether public interest criterion in s 44H(4)(f) of Act requires or permits inquiry into likely net balance of social costs and benefits if declaration made — Whether s 44H of Act confers broad discretion on Minister to conduct social cost-benefit analysis if prescribed matters in s 44H point in favour of declaration being made — Whether Minister's discretion confined to matters within purpose and object of s 44H — Whether open to National Competition Council to recommend Hamersley and Robe line services be subject of declaration under s 44H of Act.
Words and phrases — "uneconomical for anyone to develop another facility to provide the service".
Documents
28/10/2011 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
11/11/2011 Notice of appeal
25/11/2011 Written submissions (Appellants)
25/11/2011 Chronology (Appellants)
02/12/2011 Written submissions (National Competition Council - seeking leave to intervene)
15/12/2011 Written submissions (Respondents - Rio Tinto parties)
15/12/2011 Written submissions (Respondents - BHP parties)
22/12/2011 Reply (M155/2011)
22/12/2011 Reply (M156-157/2011)
06/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
08/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
22/03/2012 Supplementary submissions (Appellants)
05/04/2012 Supplementary submissions (Respondents - Rio Tinto parties)
05/04/2012 Supplementary submissions (Respondents - BHP parties)
12/04/2012 Supplementary submissions (National Competition Council intervening)
19/04/2012 Supplementary reply (Appellants)
14/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)