Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: ELECTRICITY NETWORKS CORPORATION TRADING AS WESTERN POWER vs HERRIDGE PARTIES & ORS
Date: 06 September 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 23m
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.
Hornsby Shire Council v. Commonwealth of Australia & Anor
Case No.
S202/2021
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Taxation – Section 55 of Constitution – Laws imposing taxation only to deal with imposition of taxation – Where Commonwealth makes grants of financial assistance for local government purposes to States under s 9 of Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cth) – Where grants made on conditions specified in s 15 of Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act – Where conditions in s 15 amended by items 16, 17 and 18 of Sch 1 to Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Act 2000 (Cth) to include conditions that, if local government failed to pay Commonwealth GST payments, then: (1) State required to withhold amount allocated to local government and pay amount to Commonwealth (s 15(aa)); and, if Commonwealth Minister tells State Treasurer that Commonwealth Minister satisfied State failed to withhold and pay amount, State to repay Commonwealth amount determined by Commonwealth Minister (s 15(c)) – Whether items 16, 17 or 18 of Sch 1 to Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Act contrary to s 55 of Constitution.
Constitutional law – Taxation – Sections 114 of Constitution – Prohibition on Commonwealth taxes imposed on property of State – Where Commonwealth provides grants of financial assistance to States under Federal Finance Relations Act 2009 (Cth), including revenue assistance by way of goods and services tax ("GST") – Where Commonwealth provides grants of financial assistance for local government purposes to States under Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act – Where Intergovernmental Agreement Implementation (GST) Act 2000 (NSW) introduced to give effect to agreement between Commonwealth and States regarding GST whereby Commonwealth paid States GST revenue and States assumed responsibility for payment of financial assistance to local governments – Where plaintiff purchased vehicle, with purchase amount including GST, and subsequently sold vehicle through auction with GST deducted – Where plaintiff, under protest, reported amount of notional GST relating to sale of vehicle in Business Activity Statement, being form for GST returns lodged with Australian Taxation Officer – Whether provisions of Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act, Federal Financial Relations Act and of Intergovernmental Agreement Implementation (GST) Act impose tax on property belonging to plaintiff, contrary to s 114 of Constitution – Proper approach to relief.
Documents
13/12/2021 Writ of Summons
14/06/2022 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video connection)
21/06/2022 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video connection)
05/09/2022 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video connection)
06/09/2022 Special case stated
09/09/2022 Order referring matter to the Full Court
31/10/2022 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
28/11/2022 Written submissions (First Defendant)
28/11/2022 Written submissions (Second Defendant)
09/12/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
12/12/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
12/12/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
12/12/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
20/12/2022 Consent order varying timetable
10/02/2023 Reply
18/04/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
18/04/2023 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)
18/04/2023 Outline of oral argument (First Defendant)
18/04/2023 Outline of oral argument (Second Defendant)
19/04/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
19/04/2023 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
14/06/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
ENT19 v. Minister for Home Affairs & Anor
Case No.
S102/2022
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Review of administrative decisions – Application for constitutional writs – Where plaintiff pleaded guilty to people smuggling and sentenced to imprisonment – Where, during sentencing, sentencing judge considered issue of general deterrence – Where plaintiff applied for Safe Haven Enterprise Visa ("SHEV") – Where Minister refused application for SHEV pursuant to s 65 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth), not being satisfied grant of visa in "national interest", being criterion set out in cl 790.227 of Sch 2 of Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) ("Decision") – Whether Decision made for punitive purpose or inflicts punishment – Whether acting in "national interest" permits Executive to act for punitive purpose or in way amounting to punishment.
Administrative law – Jurisdictional error – Procedural fairness – Where Minister took account of media coverage of plaintiff's conviction as part of reason why grant of SHEV not in national interest – Whether Minister failed to consider relevant consideration – Whether Minister proceeded on incorrect understanding of law.
Documents
06/07/2022 Application for constitutional writs
08/08/2022 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by remote connection)
05/09/2022 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by remote Connection)
08/09/2022 Order referring matter to the Full Court
07/10/2022 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
27/10/2022 Written submissions (Defendants)
15/11/2022 Reply
08/12/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/12/2022 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)
08/12/2022 Chronology
08/12/2022 Outline of oral argument (Defendants)
08/12/2022 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)
23/01/2023 Revised written submissions (Plaintiff)
23/01/2023 Revised chronology (Plaintiff)
15/02/2023 Revised written submissions (Defendants)
22/02/2023 Revised reply
14/03/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/03/2023 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)
15/03/2023 Outline of oral argument (Defendants)
15/03/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-Visual recording)
14/06/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Stanley v. Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) & Anor
Case No.
S126/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
21/12/2021 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bell P, Basten, Leeming, McCallum and Beech-Jones JJA)
Catchwords
Administrative law – Judicial review – Jurisdictional error – Where District Court's exercise of sentencing discretion governed by Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ("CSP") – Where s 7 of CSP provides court that sentenced offender to imprisonment may make intensive correction order ("ICO") – Where, when considering making ICO, Part 5 of CSP applies, including s 66 which provides "[c]ommunity safety must be paramount consideration" when sentencing court is deciding whether to make ICO – Where s 66(2) requires sentencing court to assess whether making order or serving sentence more likely to address offender's risk of reoffending – Whether failure to comply with s 66(2) of CSP constitutes jurisdictional error – Whether statutory requirement that matter be considered is jurisdictional/mandatory if power being exercised is part of sentencing process undertaken by court – Whether statutory requirement that matter be considered is not jurisdictional if failure to comply cannot be characterised as fundamentally misconceiving sentencing function – Whether "complex" consequences of finding criminal sentence invalid weigh significantly against finding statutory requirement intended to be jurisdictional/mandatory.
Documents*
19/08/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by remote connection)
31/08/2022 Notice of appeal
06/09/2022 Order amending title of matter by consent
16/09/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
15/09/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
14/10/2022 Written submissions (First Respondent)
21/10/2022 Reply
15/11/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
(Pronouncement of orders included)
15/11/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
15/11/2022 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
15/02/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Laundy Hotels (Quarry) Pty Limited v. Dyco Hotels Pty Limited atf The Parras Family Trust & Ors
Case No.
Case S125/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
21/12/2021 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bathurst CJ, Basten & Brereton JJA)
Catchwords
Contracts – Construction – Interpretation – Termination – Frustration – Supervening illegality – Covid-19 – Public Health Order – Where settlement of goodwill, plant and equipment under contract for sale of hotel and associated business agreed to take place on 30 March 2020 – Where cl 50.1 of contract required vendor to carry on business in usual and ordinary course as regards its nature, scope and manner and repair and maintain assets in same manner as at date of contract and use reasonable endeavours to ensure all items on inventory in good repair and in proper working order – Where Public Health (Covid-19 Places of Social Gathering) Order 2020 (NSW), made pursuant to Public Health Act 2010 (NSW), came into effect on 23 March 2020 and prohibited opening of pubs except for sale of food and beverages to be consumed off premises – Where purchasers asserted contract had been frustrated – Whether supervening illegality pursuant to Public Health Order suspended parties' obligations to seek completion of contract – Whether Public Health Order amounted to doctrine of temporary suspension of obligations inconsistent with approach to resolving questions of supervening illegality
Documents
19/08/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by remote connection)
31/08/2022 Notice of appeal
07/10/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
07/10/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
04/11/2022 Written submissions (Respondents)
21/11/2022 Agreed Chronology (Appellant)
25/11/2022 Reply
09/12/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/12/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
09/12/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
08/03/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)