As the ‘circle of meaning’ diagram in Episode 66 illustrates, the process of interpretation begins and ends with the text of the law. A recent case shows why this is important – Minister v ERY191. Two options were available on how to read a migration ‘character test’, neither of which was clearly correct. The plurality (at [77]) said …
LibertyWorks Inc v Cth [2021] FCAFC 90
A private think-tank challenged a COVID overseas travel ban made under laws to prevent the spread of disease3. It said its members should not be subjected to a measure a named individual could not be. Also, the ban could only cover domestic movements – cf s 21(1)(b) of the Acts Interpretation …
Coleman v Caesarstone Australia [2021] QSC 125
This is a rare case where words were added into legislation7. A stonemason contracted accelerated silicosis and later depression caused by that disease. Proceedings for a ‘personal injury that is a dust-related condition’ are fast-tracked due to the low life expectancy of sufferers8. Did he have to maintain separate …
Attorney-General v Driver [2021] SASC 66
A violent sex offender was kept in prison after his term expired on community safety grounds10. He said this was ‘draconian’ and would strip him of fundamental human rights under international law11.
Livesey J (at [39-47]) held that, while the provision was subject to the principle of legality, the ‘language …
Peter Greensill Family v FCT [2021] FCAFC 99
This tax case at the intersection of CGT and trust provisions raises how argument by reference to anomalous outcomes may distort the interpretation process. Arguments of this kind may obscure rather than assist identification of statutory purpose.
The court said (at 70]) that care needs to be taken not to allow anomaly …
Moorcroft is a High Court migration decision about when a person is ‘removed from Australia’1. Given the issues raised, there was some expectation the case would delve into various interpretation areas, perhaps providing new perspectives or extended analysis. This didn’t happen. In a unanimous judgment, the court merely said (at [15]) the provision had ‘to be interpreted by …
CGX20 v Minister [2021] FCAFC 69
What happens when you find a simple drafting error in a provision? A ministerial direction under migration law required regard to be had to ‘impact on victims’ in visa revocation situations4. Clause 14.4(1) begins – ‘Impact of a decision not to revoke on members of the Australian community [etc] …’ The word …
Compass Group Education v CSR [2021] QCA 98
In this payroll tax case, Williams J (at [195-205]) gives a grand tour of interpretation principle, with quotes from High Court cases – a convenient refresher. One thing (at [201]), which is not so often highlighted, is that in practice it is more difficult to displace an interpretation that ‘has a powerful …
Fuchs Lubricants v Quaker [2021] FCAFC 65
Quaker held a patent for detecting injuries caused by hydraulic fluid under pressure penetrating a worker. Sued for infringement, Fuchs said the patent was invalid for breaching ‘reasonable trial’ provisions in the legislation9. One argument Fuchs put meant that regulations would prevail over the Act.
The court (at [166]) said regulations …
Virgin Australia Airlines v FCT [2021] FCA 523
This case held that pilots have a ‘primary place of employment’ for FBT purposes11. Griffiths J (at [80]) cautioned about the ‘danger and inappropriateness of over-emphasising the form of expression by individual judges and treating them as though those expressions were themselves the text of a statute’12. Interpretation …
