Rizeq v Western Australia [2017] HCA 23

From the High Court of Australia:

Constitutional law (Cth) – Courts – State courts – Federal jurisdiction – Diversity jurisdiction – Where appellant resident of New South Wales – Where appellant indicted for offence against law of Western Australia – Where matter between State and resident of another State within meaning of s 75(iv) of Constitution – Where District Court of Western Australia exercising federal jurisdiction – Whether provisions of State Act picked up and applied as Commonwealth law – Whether s 79 of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) operates in respect of s 6(1)(a) of Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) – Whether s 79 of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) operates in respect of s 114(2) of Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA).

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Where trial by jury in federal jurisdiction – Where majority verdict of guilty returned – Whether unanimous jury verdict required by s 80 of Constitution – Whether majority jury verdict permitted under s 114(2) of Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA).

Words and phrases – "accrued jurisdiction", "diversity jurisdiction", "Federal Judicature", "federal jurisdiction", "jurisdiction", "matter", "picked up and applied", "power", "State jurisdiction", "State legislative capacity", "trial by jury".

Dr James Stellios assisted Matthew Howard SC in representing the appellant.

Menzies v Paccar Financial Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 400 (21 April 2016)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether proceeding should be summarily dismissed – whether applicants precluded by Anshunestoppel from obtaining claims under Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth) – whether Supreme Court of New South Wales invested with federal jurisdiction with respect to such claims – whether unreasonable for applicants to refrain from making such claims in earlier proceedings – whether claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process have any reasonable prospect of success.

David Rayment represented the Respondents.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Hampton & Heath and Ors [2017] FamCA 132 (8 March 2017)

From the Family Court of Australia:

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best Interests of the children – Where there is a risk of harm to the children in the care of each parent – Where there are allegations of family violence – Where the first respondent father perpetrated family violence – Where there are concerns regarding the mental health of the first respondent father – Where there are concerns regarding the drug use of the parties – Where the second respondent father has been convicted of assaulting one of the children – Where each of the parties has a criminal record – Where the mother was abused as a child – Where the mother identifies as Aboriginal – Where there are concerns about the mother’s ability to cope with four children – Where the youngest child lives with the paternal uncle – Where the sibling relationships are significant – Where there are concerns about the capacity of each parent to meet the needs of the children – Where there is an unacceptable risk of harm to the children in the care of each parent – Where the children should have a connection to their Aboriginal heritage – Where the Department of Family and Community Services is to have sole parental responsibility for the children – Where the children spend time with the mother – Where the child spends time with the second respondent father – Where the children spend time with the first respondent father.

Dr Stephen Tully appeared for the First Respondent.

Caason Investments Pty Ltd v Cao [2015] FCAFC 94 (3 September 2015)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal - application for leave to amend pleading - representative proceeding under Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Pt IVA – claim for compensation for loss or damage resulting from misstatement in, or omission from, disclosure document under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 729 - claims of misleading or deceptive conduct - causation – market-based causation – whether primary judge erred in rejecting proposed amendments to reflect market-based causation case – whether the market-based causation case is a viable one in the context of the claim under s 729 - whether reliance is a necessary element under s 729 - leave to appeal granted – appeal allowed.

David Rayment represented the Seventh Respondent.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Dattilo v Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) [2017] FCAFC 17

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether the Federal Circuit Court (Commonwealth Tenancy Disputes) Instrument 2015 (Cth) (Instrument) was ultra vires s 10AA(3) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) to make provision for and in relation to all or any of specified matters in respect of aCommonwealth tenancy dispute – whether a provision of the Instrument commenced before the day the Instrument was registered for the purposes of s 12 of the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth)

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – appeal from Federal Circuit Court of Australia – claimed errors in fact-finding by primary judge – claimed errors in primary judge’s exercise of discretion in s 94 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) that it was appropriate to make a termination order for a residential tenancy agreement – whether error by the primary judge in suspending the order for vacant possession – whether to grant application that, in an appeal, the Court receive further evidence

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – separation of judicial and executive powers – whereResidential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)conferring power on State Tribunal was made the applicable law for Commonwealth tenancy disputes in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia involving land in New South Wales – whether acquisition of property other than on just terms – whether there was a “matter” within the meaning of Ch III of the Constitution – whether it was beyond the legislative power of the Parliament to make s 10AA of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) and the Federal Circuit Court (CommonwealthTenancy Disputes) Instrument 2015 (Cth)

LANDLORD AND TENANT – application by Commonwealth as lessor to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for a termination order for a residential tenancy agreement where the tenant had been in continual possession of the same residential premises for a period of 20 years or more – whether predominant use of premises for the purposes of agriculture within s 7(h) of theResidential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – whether errors in primary judge’s exercise of discretion in s 94 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) that it was appropriate to make a termination order for a residential tenancy agreement

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an adjournment – whether leave should be granted to amend grounds of appeal – whether to grant application that, in an appeal, the Court receive further evidence 

Patrick Kenney v Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) [2017] FCAFC 16

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether theFederal Circuit Court (Commonwealth Tenancy Disputes) Instrument 2015 (Cth) (Instrument) was ultra vires s 10AA(3) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) to make provision for and in relation to all or any of specified matters in respect of a Commonwealth tenancy dispute – whether a provision of the Instrument commenced before the day the Instrument was registered for the purposes of s 12 of the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth)

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – appeal from Federal Circuit Court of Australia – claimed errors in fact-finding by primary judge – claimed errors in primary judge’s exercise of power under s 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) as modified by the Federal Circuit Court (Commonwealth Tenancy Disputes) Instrument 2015 (Cth) – whether error in appropriate date for vacant possession – whether error by the primary judge in suspending the order for vacant possession – whether to grant application that, in an appeal, the Court receive further evidence

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – separation of judicial and executive powers – whereResidential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)conferring power on State Tribunal was made the applicable law for Commonwealth tenancy disputes in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia involving land in New South Wales – whether acquisition of property other than on just terms – whether there was a “matter” within the meaning of Ch III of the Constitution – whether it was beyond the legislative power of the Parliament to make s 10AA of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) and the Federal Circuit Court (Commonwealth Tenancy Disputes) Instrument 2015 (Cth)

LANDLORD AND TENANT – application by Commonwealth as lessor to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for a termination order for a residential tenancy agreement where the tenant had been in continual possession of the same residential premises for a period of less than 20 years – whether predominant use of premises for the purposes of agriculture or business within s7(h) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010(NSW) – whether errors in primary judge’s exercise of power under s 85 of theResidential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) as modified by the Federal Circuit Court (Commonwealth Tenancy Disputes) Instrument 2015 (Cth) – whether error in appropriate date for vacant possession

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an adjournment – whether leave should be granted to amend grounds of appeal – whether to grant application that, in an appeal, the Court receive further evidence

Polley v R [2015] NSWCCA 247 (11 September 2015)

SENTENCE APPEAL – two offences of supplying a prohibited drug – pleas of guilty – MDMA and methylamphetamine – finding of drug trafficking “to a substantial degree” – strong subjective case – good prospects of rehabilitation – nevertheless custodial sentence inevitable – whether applicant’s strong subjective case properly taken into account – whether strong subjective case amounted to “exceptional circumstances” – whether sentence manifestly excessive – circumstances of offending required that effect be given to general deterrence – applicant’s strong subjective case did not amount to exceptional circumstances – proper exercise of sentencing discretion – appeal dismissed.