AJ & PA McBride Ltd v FCT [2020] AATA 1909
The taxpayer bought a property with existing ‘fencing assets’. A $2.74m deduction was claimed for capital expenditure incurred on ‘construction, manufacture, installation or acquisition’ of that fencing11. The AAT (at [73-77]) denied the deduction.
Statutory purpose required ‘a fence coming into existence on the land and not just …
Context is always important and often decisive, as the case on access to correspondence between Sir John Kerr and the Queen shows1. Marked ‘personal and confidential’, these papers have been the subject of intense speculation ever since the dismissal. Public access could be had if each was a ‘Commonwealth record’, defined as ‘a record that is the property …
Burgess v Commonwealth [2020] FCA 670
When it is argued that a provision is constitutionally invalid4, a presumption of validity applies on the basis that parliament ‘did not intend to pass beyond constitutional bounds’5 – see Episode 7.
This presumption, said Besanko J (at [96]), is not to be pushed beyond its ‘proper limits’. Courts should not …
Meyrick v Home Affairs [2020] FCA 677
Statutes are generally read in line with Australia’s international obligations. In this visa cancellation case8, however, the decision-maker failed to have regard to a convention to which Australia was party but parliament had not yet legislated for9.
Unenacted treaties may guide the common law10, but failing to …
Taylor v The Queen [2020] VSCA 50
This is a rare case where contrary intention rebuts the presumption that the singular includes the plural12. T was charged with trafficking in a ‘drug of dependence’13 – ‘anabolic or steroid agents’, which is a class of drugs rather than an individual drug. The question was whether a class of …
Universal Property v BCC [2020] NSWCA 106
The old idea that parliament does not intend to contradict itself14 finds modern emphasis in the ‘principle of harmonious operation’15. Brought to attention in Project Blue Sky, this requires harmony to be sought for warring provisions within and between statutes of the same legislature. Implied repeal only occurs where …
Statutory interpretation rarely makes the front page. But news outlets everywhere1 have reported the US Supreme Court decision making it illegal to sack people simply for being gay or transgender2 – Bostock v Clayton County3. Much of the ruckus was over the fact that it was a Trump appointee, Neil Gorsuch, who held that the Civil …
Peter Greensill Family Co v FCT [2020] FCA 559
The meaning of connecting words depends very much on context. Were certain capital gains to be disregarded as being ‘from’ a CGT event?6 That word indicates a causal connection7 but as Thawley J found (at [52]) ‘causation is not the exclusive criterion’.
It requires a stronger degree of …
Hamzy v Commissioner [2020] NSWSC 414
A number of restrictions were placed on prisoner Hamzy – monitoring phone calls, security-checking his lawyers and denying audio-visual access. He said his right to legal representation had been infringed, and that security-checking was unreasonable.
Bellew J disagreed saying (at [73-77]) that prison rules can be applied to take account of particular circumstances. Authorities …
BWP Management v Ipswich [2020] QCA 104
The long-held High Court position on statutory definitions is that, for circularity reasons, the term defined has no influence on the meaning of the definition10. Other courts have questioned this on the basis the term defined is part of the Act and available to be used in construing the definition11…
