Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and Department of Transport and Main Roads; City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd (Third party) [2014] QICmr 6 (25 February 2014)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QICmr/2014/6.html
1300 00 2088
Category Archives: Administrative Law
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal
ON THIS DAY in 2014, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal was established by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 No 2.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/caata2013n2353
Sydney Nationwide Realty Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro; IAE EDU NET Pty Limited v Sydney Metro [2011] NSWLEC 19
World Best Holdings Limited v Sarker [2010] NSWCA 24
World Best Holdings Limited v Sarker [2010] NSWCA 24 (15 April 2010).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2010/24.html
1300 00 2088
Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission; Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Childs) [2010] HCA 1
ON 3 FEBRUARY 2010, the High Court of Australia delivered Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission; Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Childs) [2010] HCA 1 (3 February 2010).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2010/1.html
Kirk was charged for offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 (NSW). The statement of offence did not identify the acts or omissions that constituted the alleged offences.
The charges were heard by the NSW Industrial Court. During the hearing the prosecution called Kirk as a witness for the prosecution.
Kirk was convicted and sentenced.
Kirk appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal seeking an order in the nature of certiorari on the grounds that there was a jurisdictional error. Kirk argued that the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in two ways: (1) the statement of offence did not identify the acts of omissions that constituted the alleged offences, nor the measures available to address the risks, so the defendant was denied an opportunity to properly defend the charges and (2) that under s17(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), a defendant is not competent to give evidence for the prosecution and the trial was therefore conducted otherwise than in accordance with the laws of evidence. The NSW Court of Appeal refused to quash the convictions and sentences on the grounds that s179 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) prohibits an appeal against a review, quashing or calling into question a decision of the Industrial Court.
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision and quashed the convictions and sentences. In overturning the Court of Appeal, High Court held that (1) the a “decision” does not include a decision made by the Industrial Court outside of their jurisdiction and (2) it was beyond the power of the State legislature to limit the power of a State Supreme Court to grant relief to correct jurisdictional errors made by courts and tribunals of limited jurisdiction.
1300 00 2088
Haneef v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1273
ON THIS DAY in 2007, the Federal Court of Australia delivered Haneef v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1273 (21 August 2007).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2007/1273.html
1300 00 2088
Attorney General of New South Wales v World Best Holdings Limited & Ors [2005] NSWCA 261
Attorney General of New South Wales v World Best Holdings Limited & Ors [2005] NSWCA 261 (11 August 2005).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2005/261.html
1300 00 2088
World Best Holdings Limited v Sarker and anor [2004] NSWSC 935
World Best Holdings Limited v Sarker and anor [2004] NSWSC 935 (12 October 2004).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2004/935.html
1300 00 2088
Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37
ON 6 AUGUST 2004, the High Court of Australia delivered Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37; 219 CLR 562; 208 ALR 124; 78 ALJR 1099 (6 August 2004).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2004/37.html
The High Court held that the provisions under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) requiring the continued detention of non-citizens for an indefinite period are not prohibited by the Constitution because the purpose of the legislation is the eventual removal of those persons.
1300 00 2088
WACO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 171
WACO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 171 (15 August 2003).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2003/171.html
The applicant was a citizen of Iran who applied for a protection visa. Evidence upon which he relied included two letters purporting to show an association with a reformist cleric named Ayatollah Sayed Mohammad Shirazi.
The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Indigenous Affairs not to grant the applicant’s visa, finding that it was not satisfied that he had a genuine fear of persecution and there was not a real chance that he would face persecution upon his return to Iran. The Tribunal concluded that several parts of the applicant’s evidence were implausible and that he was not a credible witness. Specifically, the Tribunal doubted the genuineness of the letters concerning the Ayatollah Shirazi.
It was common ground that the Tribunal did not at any time indicate to the applicant of its doubts about the letters, nor did it give the applicant an opportunity to put his case as to why they were genuine.
The applicant brought proceedings in the Federal Court seeking prerogative writs against the Tribunal’s decision. Those proceedings were dismissed by French J.
The Full Court of the Federal Court allowed an appeal, setting aside French J’s orders, issuing a writ of certiorari and remitting the matter back to the Tribunal. The Full Court held that procedural fairness imposes a duty on the Tribunal to ensure that an applicant is made aware of the case against him or her and given an opportunity to be heard in response to the issues to be decided.
Application by the Attorney General under Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act for a Guideline Judgment Concerning the Offence of High Range Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol Under Section 9(4) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (No. 3 of 2002) [2004] NSWCCA 303
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 