Heatley v Tasmanian Racing & Gaming Commission [1977] HCA 39

ON 7 JULY 1977, the High Court of Australia delivered Heatley v Tasmanian Racing & Gaming Commission [1977] HCA 39; (1977)137 CLR 487 (7 July 1977).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1977/39.html

Heatley had been warned off racecourses in Tasmania without any notice by the Commission of it’s intention to do so. The court held that the Commission was bound by the rules of natural justice to give such notice (unless there was an emergency) and that Heatley should have had the opportunity to make representations before the Commission made it’s decision.

The court found that Heatley, as a member of the public, had a legitimate expectation of being admitted to the racecourse and that for the rules of natural justice to apply, the applicant only needed to have a legitimate expectation rather than a right or interest.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Anns v Merton LBC [1977] UKHL 4

ON 12 MAY 1977, the House of Lords delivered Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728.

Anns and others were tenants in a block of flats in which were discovered to have structural defects. The council of Merton were responsible for inspecting the depth of the foundations during the construction of the building. The tenants therefore sued the council and the builder for negligence.

The council were held to owe a duty of care to the tenants to ensure the foundations were of the correct depth. The case is historically significant by how it broadened the way in which the courts determined if there was a duty of care.

The court introduced a two stage test to determine the scope of the duty of care, though this test is no longer followed in Australia: see Council of the Shire of Sutherland v Heyman [1985] HCA 41; (1985) 157 CLR 424 (4 July 1985).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1977/4.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)

ON 28 APRIL 1977, the NSW Parliament enacted the Anti Discrimination Act 1977.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aa1977204

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Miller v Jackson [1977] EWCA Civ 6

ON 4 JUNE 1977, the England and Wales Court of Appeal delivered Miller v Jackson [1977] EWCA Civ 6 (06 April 1977).  A cricket club was sued in negligence and nuisance caused by cricket balls landing on a neighbour’s property.  Whilst ordering damages, the court refused to grant an injunction to cease the action or further action as the game of cricket itself was considered to be in the public interest.

Lord Denning began with the following:

“In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last seventy years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club-house for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practice while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a Judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there anymore, lie has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket. But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that, when a batsman hits a six, the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at weekends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the Judge to stop the cricket being played. And the Judge, I am sorry to say, feels that the cricket must be stopped: with the consequences, I suppose, that the Lintz cricket-club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.”

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1977/6.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

1977 | Redfern Legal Centre founded

IN THIS DAY in 1977, the Redfern Legal Centre was founded.

Sharman v Evans [1977] HCA 8

ON 25 FEBRUARY 1977, the High Court of Australia delivered Sharman v Evans [1977] HCA 8; (1977) 138 CLR 563 (25 February 1977).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1977/8.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

1977 | Federal Court of Australia began

ON THIS DAY in 1977, the Federal Court of Australia began to exercise its jurisdiction under the Commonwealth Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fcoaa1976249

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth)

ON THIS DAY in 1976, the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia enacted the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Twist v Randwick Municipal Council [1976] HCA 58

Twist v Randwick Municipal Council [1976] HCA 58; (1976) 136 CLR 106 (17 November 1976).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/136clr106.html

A statutory authority with the power to affect the rights of a person must hear from the person before exercising the power.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong [1976] HCA 39

ON 3 AUGUST 1976, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong [1976] HCA 39; (1976) 136 CLR 248 (3 August 1976).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1976/39.html

The decision sets out the test under Australian law for apprehended bias.

A judge must not hear a case if “the parties or the public might reasonably suspect that he was not unprejudiced and impartial”: per Barwick CJ, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ at 263.

Public confidence in the administration of justice is of fundamental importance: “If fair-minded people reasonably apprehend or suspect that the tribunal has prejudged the case, they cannot have confidence in the decision”: at 263.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Mosman Solicitor & Notary