R v RB [2022] NSWCCA 142
Statements in extrinsic materials cannot be substituted for the statutory text1. They may reveal legislative purpose, but must be subjected to scrutiny and treated with caution. They can also be wrong2, as this case shows. The issue was whether sex offence provisions required a relationship to exist or merely the …
BXS20 v Minister [2022] FedCFamC2G 515
Calculation of administrative fees often presents problems. In this case, various factors (including increases) made the fees ‘more difficult to calculate’5. But this ‘did not render the effect of the provisions uncertain’, as Judge Laing held (at [32]).
The court was bound to give effect to the regulations ‘even where they require …
Smith v R [2022] SASCA 48
Statutes are read not to breach fundamental rights and freedoms, absent clear words8. This protects against ‘inadvertent and collateral’ contraventions9. The boundaries here are ever being tested10.
In this roadside licence check case11, it was accepted (at [28-29]) there is a common law right to go …
LCM Funding v Stanwell [2022] FCAFC 103
Anderson J (at [79]) provides a statement of principle at the very heart of our ‘modern approach’ – ‘Consideration of purpose in statutory interpretation is not optional: s 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901’12. It was a ‘clear error’ of an earlier court to forego a purposive approach to a …
It’s more than easy to fall into the ‘1 + 1 = 3’ trap when interpreting statutes – that is, ‘provision + dictionary = answer’. We all recall that line from the old American case, repeated by our courts – ‘don’t make a fortress out of a dictionary’1. The point is that we have a contextual system of …
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 …
Sir Gerard Brennan, a titan of the law, died this month. His stellar career, traced elsewhere1, was founded on deep dedication to principle. Brennan succeeded Barwick on the High Court in 1981 just before Cooper Brookes and s 15AA. After Mabo, and in line with a credo of general restraint, a major legacy is his reorientation of …
