In the matter of a claim for relief relating to the dismissal of Nanda Abeysinghe by Mosman Municipal Council [2003] NSWIRComm 1044 (25 September 2003).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWIRComm/2003/1044.html

Defamation, LAW FIRM

Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52

September 11, 2003 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2003, the High Court of Australia delivered Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52; 216 CLR 327; 201 ALR 184; 77 ALJR 1739 (11 September 2003).

The Daily Telegraph had reported on a 1996 Federal Court decision of Justice Hill regarding a tax assessment of the interest component of a 1990 damages award by the NSW Supreme Court in the amount of $808,564.38 to Maree Lynette Whitaker in her action against eye surgeon Dr Christopher Rogers.

Appeals against the 1990 decision were dismissed by the NSW Court of Appeal and High Court of Australia. The High Court decision of Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175 CLR 479 (19 November 1992) is a well known decision regarding negligence arising from failure to warn of inherent but remote risks as opposed to negligence in the recommendation of the procedure or the manner in which the procedure is performed. Dr Rogers had performed surgery on Whitaker’s right eye, which was almost blind. The surgery should have restored her sight, but instead became blind in the left eye when she suffered sympathetic opthalmia. Whilst the risk was remote, Dr Rogers was held to be negligent in failing to warn Whitaker of the risk.

In reporting on the 1996 decision, the Daily Telegraph referred to Ms Whitaker as being blinded by Dr Roger’s negligence, imputing that he had been negligent in the performance of the surgery.

The High Court in Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd held that the Daily Telegraph’s reference to the decision of Rogers v Whitaker was not a fair report of court proceedings and had defamed Dr Rogers by adding to what was said by Justice HIll. The court held that the story was not entitled to the defence of qualified privilege.

1300 00 2088

Administrative Law, LAW FIRM, Migration Law

WACO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 171

August 15, 2003 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

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