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 …
iNOW! aims to boost awareness of principle and developments in statutory interpretation. Although iNOW! is produced within the ATO, each episode contains a disclaimer – ‘iNOW! is not a public ruling or legal advice and is not binding on the ATO’. iNOW! maintains a disinterested yet rigorous approach to what it reports. An article in the Weekly Tax Bulletin…
Doyle’s Farm Pty Ltd v MDBA [2021] NSWSC 369
Was the Murray Darling Basin Authority a ‘public or other authority’ for civil liability purposes2? A note directed the reader to the Interpretation Act 1987. That Act applies to all NSW statutes except to the extent of any contrary intention. While the Act is only a starting point …
Ozcan v Macarthur Disability [2021] NSWCA 56
When parliament re-enacts provisions courts have construed, it is presumed to have adopted that interpretation as applying to the new law6. This case (at [32-34]) flags a practical difficulty. This is that the strength of the presumption varies with the confidence with which it may be gauged that the legislature knew …
Namoa v The Queen [2021] HCA 13
Namoa and her husband were convicted for conspiring to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act8. She argued spouses can’t be guilty of conspiracy due to an old common law rule. Gleeson J (at [11])9 said codes take their natural meaning with no presumption that they merely restate the …
Barnden, in re Millrange Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 415
What happens when a statutory obligation is impossible to comply with? In this corporations law case, the liquidator had to notify all creditors a pooling order was to be sought13. Jagot J (at [5]) held that, where a statutory obligation cannot be complied with ‘for some reason beyond the …
