Principles

Pritchard v M 6:8 Legal [2024] WASCA 4

The appeal court in this case makes an important point about the manner in which views of the court below on interpretation are to be approached.  It was said (at [35]) – ‘This court applies the correctness standard in reaching its own view as to the proper construction of the provisions, without …

Munkara v Santos NA Barossa (No 3) [2024] FCA 9

This gas pipeline case was fought over the meaning of ‘significant new environmental impact’ in federal regulations.  Charlesworth J (at [135]) said the regulation was to be read in accordance with the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and ‘well established principles’, quoting SZTAL [2017] HCA 34 (at [14]) –

“The starting …

Harvey v Minister [2024] HCA 1

As the first case decided by the High Court this year, Harvey v Minister for Primary Industry & Resources makes important points about extrinsic materials and our ‘modern approach’ more generally.

The issue was whether a mineral lease involved a right to mine for the sole purpose of constructing an ‘infrastructure facility … associated …

Statutory Interpretation in Australia

Dennis Pearce has published the 10th edition of his classic text, a monumental achievement¹⁵.  For half a century, this book has guided courts, academics and practitioners with authority, style and perspective.  As LexisNexis says, it is the ‘most cited text on Australian law’.  The slim volume which appeared in 1974 has grown in line …

Carr v Attorney-General [2023] FCA 1500

Federal law makes it an offence to use a carriage service to assist someone to commit ‘suicide’⁵.  Victoria allows doctors to prescribe a ‘voluntary assisted dying substance’ to certain persons⁶.  It was argued that a doctor using a carriage service in this context commits no offence, as ‘suicide’ does not …

Armitage v Parole Board Qld [2023] QCA 239

In Queensland, a ‘no body – no parole’ rule applies where ‘part of the body or remains of the victim has not been located’⁸.  Armitage was convicted of manslaughter, but 15% of the body was unaccounted for (hands and feet).  Did the rule apply in this case?

Flanagan JA (at …

Mangoola v Muswellbrook SC [2023] NSWCA 275

Mangoola sought to recover $3m in overpaid council rates.  The Act said action for amounts ‘recoverable on restitutionary grounds’ had to be commenced within 12 months¹¹ – not met.  Mangoola argued that this deadline did not apply to statutory claims.

Leeming JA said context and purpose made it clear the Act was …

Karpik v Carnival plc [2023] HCA 39

Passengers who caught COVID on a cruise sued the vessel owner under unfair contract provisions in the Australian Consumer Law¹³.  One issue was whether the consumer provisions applied to contracts made offshore and to things done outside Australia.

Where the presumption of extraterritoriality arises, the ‘starting point is always the interpretation …

Kingston v Transport for Victoria [2023] VSC 618

In this case, Quigley J examines the interpretation principles applicable to compulsory acquisition. 

First, the right to compensation is ‘entirely statutory’⁶.  Second, although these statutes are subject to the usual rules of interpretation, ‘obscure matters should be resolved in favour of the dispossessed party’⁷. Third, this means that …

Jusand Nominees v Rattlejack [2023] FCAFC 178

An issue in this infringement case was whether the patent specification disclosed and supported the invention⁹.  The statutory requirements had been amended to align our law with offshore practice.  On the basis they were ‘ambiguous’ under s 15AB(1)(b)(i) of the Acts Interpretation Act, Perram J had regard to extrinsic materials …