Hurley v Collector of Customs [2022] FCAFC 92
Imported alcohol went into home consumption under a permission allowing deferral of duty. When duty went unpaid, payment demands were served3. It was conceded H had ‘possession, custody or control’ of the goods, & they were ‘subject to customs control’.
The issue was whether he had failed ‘to keep the …
NSW v Kaiser [2022] NSWCA 86
This case is about whether a prisoner convicted of manslaughter was a ‘supervised offender’ against whom an ‘extended supervision order’ could be made6. He said this would restrict his rights contrary to the ‘principle of legality’, which meant the power to make the order should be construed strictly7.
The court …
Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 21
In this case (at [25]), 7 judges of the High Court confirmed that an ‘intermediate appellate court should not depart from seriously considered dicta of a majority of this Court’9 – ‘dicta’ are statements which are not part of the reasons for a decision.
Leaving aside the uncertain boundary between ‘considered’ …
BSA v Ventia Australia [2022] NSWCA 82
Ventia subcontracted provision of social housing services to BSA under an arrangement which said each work order was a separate contract. BSA made a claim of 5 work orders which Ventia rejected as violating the ‘one contract rule’ in the legislation13.
The court said it was ‘strongly arguable’ there was no …
Azizi v DPP [2022] VSCA 71
A and O jointly owned a house for which O provided the whole purchase price. O was charged with drug offences and a restraining order placed on the house. O was convicted. A argued her interest should be excluded from confiscation as she acquired it from O ‘for sufficient consideration’5. This was …
Krajcar [2022] VSC 173 and Kildair [2022] VSC 251
Two Victorian cases make key points on remedial and beneficial legislation. In the first, Croft J (at [39-41]) notes that, while remedial laws ‘should be given a beneficial construction’9, this does not allow a court ‘to transcend express words … or to disregard the fundamental structure and approach of …
Piastrino v Seascape Constructions [2022] VSC 202
It is taken as read that statutory definitions are to be inserted into the substantive provision before interpretation is applied12. To do otherwise ‘invites error’. Delany J (at [68]) makes the important extra point that the substantive provision expanded by incorporation of the definition also needs to be read in context …
Twin Rivers Developments v FCT [2022] AATA 887
This decision makes an important point about characterisation. The issue was whether payments to the director of a development entity and his wife were ‘wages’ giving rise to a ‘cash flow boost’ entitlement14. The director gave evidence they were wages and that he and his wife were employees.
However, as …
Secretary v AEUNSW [2022] NSWSC 263
Walton J in a industrial relations case surveys a range of interpretation principles then (at [38]) reduces the most fundamental of them to a single sentence – ‘… the correct approach to the construction of a statutory provision must start and end with the statutory text, and by reference to the purpose of …
Todorovska v Brydens Lawyers [2022] NSWCA 47
From a $100K damages award, lawyers deducted $68K for their costs under a special agreement overriding the statutory cap of $10K. The plaintiff complained that this eventuality had not been disclosed to her, as required5. The appeal court agreed and duly reduced the costs to the lawyers.
Basten JA said (at …
