Plaintiff M1/2021 v. Minister for Home Affairs
Case No.
M1/2021
Case Information
Catchwords
Immigration – Judicial review – Non-refoulement obligations – Where plaintiff granted Refugee and Humanitarian (Class XB) Subclass 202 (Global Special Humanitarian) visa in 2006 – Where, on 19 September 2017, plaintiff convicted of unlawful assault and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment – Where, on 27 October 2017, delegate of Minister cancelled plaintiff’s global special humanitarian visa pursuant to s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where plaintiff made representations to Minister regarding possibility of refoulement if plaintiff returned to home country – Where, on 9 August 2018, delegate of Minister decided not to revoke cancellation decision pursuant to s 501CA(4) of Migration Act – Where, in making decision, delegate did not consider whether non-refoulement obligations owed to plaintiff because plaintiff is able to apply for protection visa under Migration Act – Whether delegate required to consider plaintiff’s representations concerning non-refoulement obligations in making non-revocation decision pursuant to s 501CA(4) where plaintiff can apply for protection visa – If so, whether delegate failed to consider representations – If so, whether delegate failed to exercise jurisdiction under Migration Act or deny plaintiff procedural fairness – Whether non-revocation decision affected by jurisdictional error.
Documents*
05/01/2021 Application for constitutional writs
30/03/2021 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
13/04/2021 Special case
04/05/2021 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
04/05/2021 Chronology (Plaintiff)
25/05/2021 Written submissions (Defendant)
01/06/2021 Reply
30/11/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
30/11/2021 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)
30/11/2021Outline of oral argument (Defendant)
11/05/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Zhang v The Commissioner of Police & Ors
Date: 07 April 2021
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 31m
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.
Hofer v. The Queen
Case No.
S37/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/10/2019 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (MacFarlan JA, Fullerton & Fagan JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Criminal procedure – Conduct of cross-examination – Where applicant charged with 11 counts of having sexual intercourse without consent – Where two complainants testified as prosecution witnesses – Where applicant gave evidence – Where, during cross-examination, prosecutor asked applicant about aspects of his evidence arising from defence counsel’s failure to comply with Browne v Dunn rule in respect of those matters in cross-examination of complainants – Where prosecutor suggested applicant lying in evidence about those matters because defence counsel had not put those matters to complainants – Where defence counsel did not object to prosecutor’s questions – Where applicant convicted and unsuccessfully appealed to NSW Court of Criminal Appeal – Whether prosecutor able to cross-examine accused with regard to defence counsel’s non-compliance with rule in Browne v Dunn – Whether prosecutor engaged in impermissible questioning – Whether defence counsel at trial incompetent – Whether trial miscarried.
Documents*
12/03/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
26/03/2021 Notice of appeal
03/05/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
03/05/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
31/05/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
18/06/2021 Reply
12/08/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
12/08/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
12/08/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
10/11/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Arsalan v. Rixon
Nguyen v. Cassim
Case Nos.
S35/2021 and S36/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/06/2020 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Meagher & White JJA, Emmett AJA)
Catchwords
Torts – Damages – Damage to chattel – Where applicants’ negligence resulted in motor vehicle collision with respondents’ “high-value”, “prestige” vehicles – Where respondents’ vehicles damaged, and respondents hired replacement vehicles of equivalent value while damaged vehicles underwent repairs – Where respondents claimed damages for cost of hiring replacement vehicles of equivalent value in NSW Local Court – Where magistrate awarded damages only for cost of hiring suitable replacement vehicle for uses vehicle will likely to be put, not necessarily of equivalent value – Where respondents’ appeal to Supreme Court dismissed – Where respondents’ appeal to Court of Appeal allowed – Where Court of Appeal majority held damages be awarded to put claimant in position they would have been in before wrongdoing, i.e., for replacement vehicle of equivalent value – Where each judge in Court of Appeal applied different standard – Whether respondents entitled to claim damages for cost of hiring replacement vehicles of equivalent value to damaged prestige vehicles – Whether equivalent value replacement vehicle reasonable – Correct test of quantification of damages.
Documents*
12/03/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
26/03/2021 Notices of appeal
30/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellant in S35/2021)
30/04/2021 Chronology (Appellant in S35/2021)
30/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellant in S36/2021)
30/04/2021 Chronology (Appellant in S36/2021)
28/05/2021 Written submissions (Respondent in S35/2021)
28/05/2021 Written submissions (Respondent in S36/2021)
18/06/2021 Reply (Appellant in S35/2021)
18/06/2021 Reply (Appellant in S36/2021)
8/09/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra and by video connection)
8/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant in S35/2021)
8/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent in S35/2021)
8/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant in S36/2021)
8/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent in S36/2021)
08/12/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v. Viane
Case No.
S34/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
24/08/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Besanko, Kerr & Charlesworth JJ)
Catchwords
Migration law – Judicial review – No evidence – Where respondent’s visa mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where respondent made representations pursuant to s 501CA as to why cancellation should be revoked – Where, if visa cancellation not revoked, respondent and family would be removed to Samoa or American Samoa – Where Minister decided not to revoke cancellation decision – Where respondent unsuccessfully appealed to Federal Court and successfully appealed to Full Court – Whether Minister made factual findings regarding language and availability of welfare and social services in Samoa and American Samoa without evidence – Whether Minister made factual findings based on personal or specialised knowledge about Samoa or American Samoa – If not, whether errors material and jurisdictional.
Documents
12/03/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
26/03/2021 Notice of appeal
30/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
30/04/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
28/05/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
18/06/2021 Reply
09/09/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra and by video connection)
09/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
09/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
08/12/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)