LFDB v SM [2017] FCAFC 178

From the Full Federal Court of Australia:

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – appeal from the dismissal by the primary judge of an application under s 72(1) of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth)to set aside the registration of a judgment of the High Court of New Zealand in relation to proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (NZ) – whether enforcement of judgment would be contrary to public policy in Australia

Dr Christopher Ward SC and Dr Stephen Tully successfully appeared for the respondent.

Ozmen Entertainment Pty Ltd v Neptune Hospitality Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1124

ADMIRALTY – joint venture to operate hospitality business aboard vessel – agreement to charter and license vessel

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for order to appoint receiver and manager to take control of vessel and business operated on-board – whether there is a serious question to be tried – balance of convenience – whether damages are an adequate remedy – application dismissed – undertakings to Court noted

Tim Castle SC appeared for the Plaintiffs.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Rekrut and Scott v Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd; Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd v Rekrut and Scott [2017] NSWCATAP 187

From the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal:

APPEAL – whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether Tribunal below failed to give adequate reasons – whether Tribunal below failed to consider claims – whether no evidence to support findings made below
  
EXTENSION OF TIME – whether extension of time needed – application of Civil and Administrative Rules 2014 (NSW) rr 6 and 13 and Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 76 – whether extension of time should be granted

Michelle McMahon appeared for Adam Rekrut and Sandra Scott.

Allen & Anderson & Byng v Tricare (Hastings) Ltd & Tucker v Tricare (Hastings) Ltd [2017] NSWCAT

From the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal - Consumer and Commercial Division:

Compensation

The full decision is available here.

Odzic v Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) [2017] FCAFC 28

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 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 – where Residential 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 s 7(h) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – whether 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.

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.

David Rayment represented the Respondent.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

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.

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Parker [2017] FCA 564

From the Federal Court of Australia:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – coercion – taking of action against another person – intent to coerce – need for an intent to negate choice – need for a high degree of compulsion

INDUSTRIAL LAW – intention – onus to establish affirmatively that action was not actuated by the reason alleged

INDUSTRIAL LAW – the taking of industrial action 

INDUSTRIAL LAW – breach of enterprise agreement

INDUSTRIAL LAW – accessorial liability – knowledge of essential matters which make up offence

INDUSTRIAL LAW – breach of civil penalty provisions

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – stay of proceeding pending resolution of criminal proceedings – stay refused – alleged contraventions “not substantially the same” 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Briginshaw standard – need to consider gravity of matters alleged 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – withdrawal of an admission in defence – leave granted

Matthew White SC appeared with Michael Rennie for the Applicant.

Estate MPS, deceased [2017] NSWSC 482

From the New South Wales Supreme Court:

SUCCESSION — Family provision — Close personal relationship — Elements — Living together, domestic support and personal care — Separate residences — Nature and quality of relationship — Social intimacy
 
SUCCESSION – Family provision — Close personal relationship — Elements — Provision of domestic support and personal care — Not for fee and reward
 
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Conduct disentitling — Character and conduct of applicant — Need to examine totality of relationship
 
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Capacity of applicant to manage affairs — Form of relief — Protective orders

PROTECTIVE JURISDICTION —Family provision application – Capacity for self-management — Conduct of proceedings without tutor — Form of relief – Protective orders

Kim Morrissey appeared with Madeleine Bridgett for the Plaintiff.

Bates & Arthur and Anor [2017] FamCAFC 73 (26 April 2017)

From the Family Court of Australia:

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – LEAVE TO INTERVENE – Application in an appeal by the father seeking leave to intervene in an appeal – Where the Court is satisfied that allowing the application would not cause any injustice to the applicant – Where in the circumstances, it is in the interests of justice that the application for leave to intervene be granted – Application to intervene granted.

Dr Christopher Ward SC appeared with Madeleine Bridgett for the First Respondent.

Dattilo v Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) [2017] FCA 329

From the Federal Court of Australia:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for a stay pending application for special leave to appeal to High Court – application dismissed, with costs

David Rayment appeared for the Commonwealth.

Uren v Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) [2017] FCAFC 30

From the Federal Court of Australia:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW– whether the Federal Circuit Court (Commonwealth Tenancy Disputes) Instrument 2015 (Cth) (Instrument) was ultra viress 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 Instrumentcommenced 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 theResidential 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 theConstitution – 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 20 years or more – whether errors in primary judge’s exercise of discretion in s 94 of theResidential 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

David Rayment appeared for the Commonwealth.

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.

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.

Joseph v NSW Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCA 31

From the New South Wales Court of Appeal:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – refusal of an application for the issue of a firearms dealer licence under the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) – evidence relating to the applicant’s allegedly fraudulent conduct – criminal charges withdrawn but conduct established on the balance of probabilities – conduct relevant to the licence application – a lesser standard of proof than the criminal standard could be applied in making findings concerning the conduct – relevance of reasons for withdrawal of criminal prosecution 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – refusal of an application for the issue of a firearms dealer licence under the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) – whether decision maker obliged to refer to relevant material where no express or implied statutory obligation to consider it and adequate reasons for the decision given

Dr Christos Mantziaris appeared for the NSW Commissioner of Police.

Leahy v Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) [2017] FCAFC 21

From the Federal Court of Australia:

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 a Commonwealth tenancy dispute – whether a provision of the Instrument commenced before the day the Instrumentwas 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 – where Residential 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 s10AA 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 20 years or more –whether predominant use of premises for the purposes of agriculture within s 7(h) of the Residential 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     

David Rayment appeared for the Commonwealth.

Findlay v Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) [2017] FCAFC 20

From the Federal Court of Australia:

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 a Commonwealth tenancy dispute – whether a provision of the Instrument commenced before the day the Instrumentwas 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 – where Residential 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 s10AA 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 20 years or more – 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 – whether unresolved claim for compensation under s 187 of theResidential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), as the applicable law, for modifications to residence

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      

David Rayment appeared for the Commonwealth.

Tucev v Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) [2017] FCAFC 19

From the Federal Court of Australia:

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 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 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 – where Residential 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 theConstitution – 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 20 years or more – whether predominant use of premises for the purposes of agriculture within s 7(h) of the Residential 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

David Rayment appeared for the Commonwealth.

Rigney v Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) [2017] FCAFC 18

From the Federal Court of Australia:

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 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 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 – where Residential 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 theConstitution – 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 20 years or more – whether predominant use of premises for the purposes of agriculture within s 7(h) of the Residential 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

David Rayment appeared for the Commonwealth.