ON 13 NOVEMBER 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Dietrich v R [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292 (13 November 1992).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/57.html
1300 00 2088
Tag Archives: SYDNEY SOLICITOR
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills [1992] HCA 46
ON 30 SEPTEMBER 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills [1992] HCA 46; (1992) 177 CLR 1 (30 September 1992).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/46.html
1300 00 2088
Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd & New South Wales v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45
ON 30 SEPTEMBER 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd & New South Wales v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45; (1992) 177 CLR 106 (30 September 1992).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/45.html
1300 00 2088
Greiner v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1992) 28 NSWLR 125
ON 21 AUGUST 1992, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Greiner v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1992) 28 NSWLR 125.
1300 00 2088
Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34
ON 27 JULY 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34; (1992) 174 CLR 509 (27 July 1992).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/34.html
The case concerns the use of the court’s power to grant a stay of proceedings when the proceedings have been used for an improper purpose.
After being dismissed from the University of Newcastle, Dr Spautz threatened, instituted and maintained private prosecutions of charges of conspiracy and criminal defamation against former colleagues including Professor Williams and others (“the appellants”).
The appellants obtained a stay of proceedings order from the Supreme Court of NSW. The trial judge found that the proceedings had been brought for the improper purpose of “exerting pressure upon the University of Newcastle to reinstate him and/or to agree to a favourable settlement of his wrongful dismissal case”.
The NSW Court of Appeal quashed the orders, holding that the appellants could receive a fair trial and that there was no evidence of any misconduct in the way the prosecution was conducted.
The High Court allowed an appeal, setting aside the Court of Appeal’s decision, declaring that the prosecutions were an abuse of process and ordering that the prosecutions be stayed permanently.
The decision provides:
- Australian courts have the inherent jurisdiction to stay criminal and civil proceedings.
- The court may grant stays in (1) proceedings in which a party may not receive a fair trial and (2) proceedings brought for an improper purpose.
- Before granting a stay for improper purpose, the court is not required to satisfy itself that there will be an unfair trial if the prosecution is not stopped: at 519-520.
- Proceedings may be stayed notwithstanding that the prosecution has a prima facie case: at 522.
- The court must have the power to act effectively within its jurisdiction, even if it means refraining from exercising their jurisdiction as it is in the public interest to ensure public confidence that the processes are used fairly and not for oppression or injustice.
1300 00 2088
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (“Mabo case”) [1992] HCA 23
ON 3 JUNE 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (“Mabo case”) [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1 (3 June 1992).
Upon the British Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty over parts of Australia since 1788, aboriginal native title survived and as such the doctrine of terra nullius does not apply to Australia.
Where validly asserted, native title entitles its holders as against the world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the particular land over which the title is claimed. It is ascertained according to the laws and customs of it’s indigenous inhabitants who have a connexion with the land through continued use and enjoyment by the group or clan since the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty.
Native title is inalienable but is extinguished if the clan or group ceases to have a connexion with the land, or by a valid exercise of government power under the laws of the Commonwealth.
1300 00 2088
Domican v R [1992] HCA 13
ON 6 MAY 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Domican v R [1992] HCA 13; (1992) 173 CLR 555 (6 May 1992).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/173clr555.html
1300 00 2088
Department of Health & Community Services v JWB & SMB (“Marion’s case”) [1992] HCA 15
ON 6 May 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Department of Health & Community Services v JWB & SMB (“Marion’s Case”) [1992] HCA 15; (1992) 175 CLR 218 (6 May 1992).
“Children – Intellectual disability – Sterilization – Power of parents to consent – Assault – Parens patriae jurisdiction of court – Criminal Code Act 1983 (N.T.), ss 1, 26, 181, 187 188.
Family Law (Cth) – Family Court – Jurisdiction – Welfare – Parens patriae – Intellectually disabled child – Sterilization – Power of Court to authorize operation – Effect of authorization on criminal law – Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss. 63, 64, 64E – Criminal Code Act 1983 (N.T.), ss 1, 26, 181, 187, 188.”
The court held that the parents of a 14 year old mentally retarded girl from the Northern Territory could not lawfully authorize a sterilization procedure on their child without an order of a court.
The court held that the Family Court of Australia has the jurisdiction to authorize the carrying out of a sterilization procedure but could not approve consent being given to the parents unless the court authorizes the procedure.
Whilst parents or guardians may authorize or consent to the carrying out of a therapeutic treatment of their child, they have no such power regarding non-therapeutic treatment.
Sterilization of an intellectuallly disabled minor falls outside of the ordinary scope of parenal powers if the procedure is not obviously necessary.
Children have the right to personal integrity under domestic and international law. Procedures, such as sterilization, are “invasive, irreversible and major surgery”. It is up to the court, not the parents or guardians, to decide the appropriate circumstances that are in the best interests of the child.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/15.html
1300 00 2088
Re Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Best and Less (Wollongong) Pty Limited (Receiver and Manager Appointed); Brian Silvia and Mogul Stud Pty Limited [1992] FCA 140
Re Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Best and Less (Wollongong) Pty Limited (Receiver and Manager Appointed); Brian Silvia and Mogul Stud Pty Limited [1992] FCA 140; (1991) 10 ACLC 520, (1991) 7 Ascr 245 (3 April 1992).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1992/140.html
1300 00 2088
Re Eastern Express Pty Limited v General Newspapers Pty Limited [1992] FCA 138
Re Eastern Express Pty Limited v General Newspapers Pty Limited; Double Bay Newspapers Pty Limited; Brehmer Fairfax Pty Limited, John B Fairfax; John Hannan; Frank Hannan and Nickelby Pty Limited [1992] FCA 138 (2 April 1992).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1992/138.html
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 