Australia High Court Court March 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon Vs. Pompano Pty Ltd and An ...
Court: Australia High Court
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
FRENCH CJ. Introduction 1. At the heart of the common law tradition is "a method of administering justice."[1] That method requires judges who are independent of government to preside over courts held in public in which each party has a full opportunity to present its own case and to meet the case against it. Antithetical to that tradition is the idea of a court, closed to the public, in which only one party, a government party, is present, and in which the judge is required by law to hear evidence and argument which neither the other party nor its legal representatives is allowed to hear. 2. The common law informs the interpretation of the Constitution and statutes made under it. It carries with it the history of the evolution of independent courts as the third branch of government and, with that history, the idea of a court, what is essential to that idea, and what is not. 3. The common law may be changed or abrogated by parliaments. The courts must apply the laws enacted by th...
Gregory John Yates Vs. the Queen
Court: Australia High Court
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
1. FRENCH CJ, HAYNE, CRENNAN AND BELL JJ. The applicant is an intellectually disabled man. He has been in continuous custody since 8 August 1986 when he was charged with two related offences arising out of the aggravated sexual assault of a seven year old child. He was convicted on 12 February 1987 and sentenced on 13 March 1987 for these offences in the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Wallace J). The term of the sentences expired in June 1993. His custody since that time has been authorised by an order made by Wallace J pursuant to s 662 of the Criminal Code (WA) ("the Code") directing his indefinite detention at the Governor's pleasure. 2. Wallace J imposed concurrent sentences of seven years' imprisonment for each of the offences[1]. The applicant appealed against the severity of the sentences and against the making of the s 662 order to the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Burt CJ, Brinsden and Smith JJ). On 29 July 1987, the Court of Criminal...
Tcl Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd Vs. the Judges of the Federal C ...
Court: Australia High Court
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
FRENCH CJ AND GAGELER J. Introduction 1. The International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) ("the IAA") gives the force of law in Australia to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted in 1985 and amended in 2006 ("the UNCITRAL Model Law") by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL")[1]. In these reasons, "the Model Law" refers to the UNCITRAL Model Law as given the force of law in Australia. 2. An application to enforce an arbitral award under Art 35 of the Model Law is a "matter ... arising under [a law] made by the [Commonwealth] Parliament" within s 76(ii) of the Constitution. That is because rights in issue in the application depend on Art 35 of the Model Law for their recognition and enforcement and because the Model Law is a law made by the Commonwealth Parliament[2]. The Federal Court of Australia has original jurisdiction in a matter arising under a law made by the Commonwealth Parliament, defined under s 77(i) of the Constitu...
Tuan Kiet David Huynh and Others Vs. the Queen
Court: Australia High Court
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
1. FRENCH CJ, CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL AND GAGELER JJ. Tuan Kiet David Huynh ("Huynh"), Chansyna Duong ("Duong") and Rotha Sem ("Sem") were each convicted of the murder of Thea Kheav at a joint trial in the Supreme Court of South Australia (Kourakis J and a jury). Each is serving a term of life imprisonment subject to a non-parole period of 20 years consequent upon that conviction. Appeals against their convictions were dismissed by the Full Court of the South Australian Supreme Court (Doyle CJ, Vanstone and Peek JJ)[1]. On 7 September 2012, Huynh was granted special leave to appeal on two overlapping grounds. Following the grant of that leave, Duong and Sem applied for special leave to appeal on the same two grounds. Their applications were referred to a Full Court on the basis that they would be argued as on appeal at the same time as the hearing of Huynh's appeal. For the reasons to be given, Duong and Sem should be given special leave to appeal but all three appeals should be dismisse...
Nishithkumar Arvindbhai Gajjar Vs. Minister for Immigration and Citize ...
Court: Australia High Court
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
1. KIEFEL J. The plaintiff is a citizen of India who is currently in Australia on a bridging visa. On 9 January 2011, he lodged an application with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship ("the Department") for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) Subclass 485 (Skilled “ Graduate) visa. A requirement for such a visa is that a visa applicant have "competent English"[1]. At the relevant time, a person was taken to have competent English if the person had successfully undertaken a test under the International English Language Testing System ("IELTS") and achieved a score of at least six for each of the four components of speaking, reading, writing and listening[2]. 2. On 20 November 2010, prior to lodging his visa application, the plaintiff undertook an IELTS test. He did not achieve the requisite score, but nevertheless applied for the visa under constraint of time. The plaintiff understood that competency in English was an essential criterion of the visa and that he needed to ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›