FCT v Runcity Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 152
It was argued a consent order made under a general power to extend time for company reinstatement was invalid because specific voidable transaction provisions were the only way to extend time10.
This raised, among other things, the Anthony Hordern principle, and whether the general power to make ‘any other order’ …
Commissioner v Montessori [2025] QCA 153
A charitable trust was established to further indigenous education under the Montessori method at Cape York. With an expansion of operations, the trustee sought charitable institution status13. The sole question was whether the trustee, in carrying out the trust, was an ‘institution’ – answer, yes.
That term took its ordinary meaning – …
Hvalica v Wollongong CC [2025] NSWLEC 119
This case is about the scope of extrinsic materials available in determining purpose around whether words could be read into an environmental plan4.
The judge (at [58-60]) referred to the ‘liberality’ of the modern approach, and that ‘indeed any material that may throw light on the meaning’ of the instrument could …
Farmer v Minister [2025] HCA 38
Edelman J (at [105]) said the presumption against surplusage in statutes ‘seldom … carries great weight’7. The corollary that all words are to be given meaning and effect therefore has a similar status. Importantly, the presumption ‘carries almost no weight when the provision is part of a scheme of overlapping circumstances’, as …
Bilal v Ampol Australia [2025] FedCFamC2G 1724
The idea that the law does not concern itself with trifling matters is frequently invoked – see Episode 33. This case (at [91-93]) illustrates 3 things – (1) The law as stated by Hill J in Farnell remains correct10. (2) The principle is a rule of thumb rather than a rule …
Ziegler v FCT [2025] FCAFC 168
Section 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 says –
Where an Act confers a power to make, grant or issue any instrument of a legislative or administrative character … the power shall be construed as including a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like conditions (if any) to repeal, …
Petersen v Argentine Republic [2025] NSWSC 1071
After Argentina’s nationalisation of energy assets in 2012, a New York judge awarded US$16b in damages to P as a dispossessed party. When P sought to enforce judgment, Argentina said relevant process had not been validly served on it, something it said could only happen under convention procedures5.
Argentina argued that, …
RPPL [2025] FCA 1126; Stretton [2025] VSC 589
Two cases show how the re-enactment presumption works in practice. In RPPL, the issue was whether jurisdiction provisions in new ART legislation are to be read the same way as in the old AAT legislation8. Given the new provisions took into account the ‘existing well-settled position’, Cheeseman J (at …
Crossley v English [2025] WASCA 141
This water access case (at [101-106]) considers the ‘principle of co-interpretation’ – that being, when one Act amends another, the two are read together ‘as one connected and combined statement of the will of parliament’10. The principle applies at both common law and under statute11, though the latter ‘has added …
Meredith v NSW (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 1133
M headed a class action for assault [etc] after she was strip searched by police for drugs at a music festival. Were the searches ‘necessary’ in terms of the ‘seriousness and urgency of the circumstances’14?
Necessary means ‘absolutely necessary’, and urgency indicates a situation ‘requiring immediate action or attention’. The …
