PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Whether issue of sufficient importance for s 20(1A) direction to be made - direction made for jurisdiction in matter to be exercised by a Full Court
WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato [2018] FCA 2100
↧
↧
Kemppi v Adani Mining Pty Ltd (No 5) [2018] FCA 2104
COSTS - application for costs - whether there should be a departure from the usual rule that costs ordinarily follow the event - whether there are circumstances justifying some other order - whether this proceeding was being pursued in the public interest - whether issues concerning the construction of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) justified departure from the usual rule
↧
Mohammed v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 2085
MIGRATION - application for Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Higher Education Sector (subclass 573) visa - failure to satisfy cl 573.231 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) - where no evidence that appellant enrolled in, or was the subject of a current offer of enrolment in, a relevant course of study
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review - appeal from Federal Circuit Court - where Tribunal granted appellant adjournment to provide evidence of enrolment - where Tribunal failed to respond to, or engage with, an email from appellant sent during the period of the adjournment - allegation that Tribunal's failure to respond to appellant's email constituted a denial of procedural fairness - whether Tribunal had a "duty" to respond to appellant as unrepresented party - alleged breach of s 359 or s 360 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - allegation that Tribunal's failure to respond to appellant's email constituted legal unreasonableness - allegation of unreasonable exercise of power or discretion in s 360 or s 363(1)(b) - appeal dismissed
↧
Arbabun v Comptroller-General of Customs [2018] FCA 2105
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to file an amended defence to a further amended statement of claim - application to withdraw an admission - application to file an amended notice of cross claim - directions made.
↧
Ibrahim v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 2087
MIGRATION - application for a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) (Subclass 801) visa - where Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the visa - where Administrative Appeals Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria in cll 801.221 and 801.226 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) - where Administrative Appeals Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met PIC 4020 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) - where proceedings commenced in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal complied with its statutory requirements under s 359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal provided clear particulars of the information to the applicant - where primary judge held that Administrative Appeals Tribunal complied with its statutory requirements under s 359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - where primary judge held that Administrative Appeals Tribunal was not required to provide the whole of the content of the communication or the particulars of the whole document - no jurisdictional error found - application dismissed
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review - appeal from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia - whether primary judge erred in concluding that Administrative Appeals Tribunal had provided clear particulars of any information as required by s 359AA or s 359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - whether primary judge erred in concluding that Administrative Appeals Tribunal had not impermissibly imposed a burden and standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt on the appellant in respect of the relevant visa criterion - whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal misunderstood its statutory function - whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal was legally unreasonable - where Administrative Appeals Tribunal was found to have complied with s 359AA or s 359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in providing clear particulars of all the information which it considered at the time would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review - where primary judge was correct to find that Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not contravene s 359AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not impose a burden and standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt on the appellant - appeal dismissed
↧
↧
James v WorkPower Inc [2018] FCA 2083
HUMAN RIGHTS - application for leave to commence proceeding otherwise barred by operation of s 46PO(3A) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) - where complaint to Australian Human Rights Commission terminated on the basis it was misconceived or lacking substance - consideration of principles relevant to Court's exercise of discretion to grant leave - whether application arguable and not fanciful - leave granted
↧
Russell v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 2102
MIGRATION - application to review a "no jurisdiction" decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal - visa cancelled pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - a delegate of the Minister refused to revoke the decision to cancel the visa - application to the Tribunal for merits review of the non-revocation decision lodged one day after the time prescribed by s 500(6B) of the Migration Act - applicant attempted to file application within time but email was not received by Tribunal due to excessive size of attachment - whether Brown v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2018] FCA 1787 is applicable - application dismissed
↧
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2018] FCA 2070
HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT - whether vexatious proceedings order should be made against applicant - applicant frequently instituting vexatious proceedings over several years - present proceedings constituting an abuse of process - applicant conducting present proceedings so as to harass and annoy - applicant having no respect for the finality of court decisions - applicant abusing the Court's procedures - applicant ignoring directions of the Court - applicant wasting judicial and administrative resources - protective purpose of order - vexatious proceedings order made in terms sought by respondent
↧
DQA16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 2086
MIGRATION - application for Protection (Class XA) visa - where Administrative Appeals Tribunal not satisfied that applicant would face serious or significant harm for the reasons claimed - where Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - application under s 39B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for judicial review of a decision of the Federal Circuit Court refusing to extend time under s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - whether jurisdictional error on the part of the Circuit Court judge - whether Circuit Court judge denied the applicant procedural fairness - where allegation of apprehended or actual bias on the part of the Circuit Court judge - brevity of reasons of Circuit Court judge - whether Circuit Court judge constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction - where ground of judicial review concerned jurisdictional errors said to have been made by Administrative Appeals Tribunal - misconception of jurisdiction of this Court - application dismissed
↧
↧
Money Max Int Pty Limited (Trustee) v QBE Insurance Group Limited (No 4) [2018] FCA 2107
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - costs - approval of settlement administration costs to be deducted from settlement sum - costs sought approximately half the amount of costs actually incurred - costs found to be fair and reasonable by Referee
↧
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Westpac Securities Administration Limited, in the matter of Westpac Securities Administration Limited [2018] FCA 2078
CORPORATIONS - where Westpac conducted campaign to encourage customers to roll over external superannuation accounts into existing Westpac accounts - whether calls to customers involved provision of "personal advice" within meaning of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 766B - whether recommendations or statements of opinion made, including by means of Westpac's "social proofing" technique, with intention to influence financial product decision - recommendations and statements of opinions made with requisite intent - whether Westpac considered "one or more of [the customers'] objectives, financial situation and needs", or whether a reasonable person might expect Westpac to have done so - no consideration given, and reasonable person would not expect such consideration in context in which relevant recommendations and statements of opinions made - no "personal advice" given - no consequent failure to comply with ss 946A or 961B or breach of ss 912A(1)(b) or 961K(2)
CORPORATIONS - whether Westpac failed to do all things necessary to ensure financial services provided "efficiently, honestly and fairly" as required by s 912A(1)(a) - where Westpac policy directed callers to encourage customers to roll over their superannuation with limited identification of customers' personal circumstances and no consideration of customers' best interests, explanation of risks or sufficient warning that Westpac was not considering such matters - contraventions found
↧
Luppino v Fisher [2018] FCA 2106
CRIMINAL LAW - interlocutory application by the Second Defendant seeking disclosure from the Plaintiff of the password(s) to a mobile phone pending resolution of the Plaintiff's challenge to an order made pursuant to s 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - consideration of the common law privilege against self-incrimination - the disclosure sought would infringe the privilege - application dismissed.
↧
Johnson v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1940
MIGRATION - judicial review - appeal from Federal Magistrates Court - protection visa - failure to apprehend document of critical importance to Appellant's case - overlooking of relevant consideration - whether failure on part of Tribunal to consider critical document amounted to jurisdictional error. Held - Tribunal committed jurisdictional error. Held - Federal Magistrates Court failed to apprehend Tribunal's act of jurisdictional error. Held - appeal allowed.
↧
↧
Sadie Ville Pty Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm) (No 5) [2018] FCA 2066
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - discovery - application pursuant to liberty to apply to be excused from complying with production order or that the production order be discharged - where a partner who was not required to produce the relevant documents (on the basis of a successful claim of privilege against self-incrimination) obtained the documents and refused to make them available to the other partners - whether in the circumstances the partners who were subject to the production order should be excused from complying with the production order - whether the production order should be discharged
↧
Esso Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Workers Union (No 2) [2018] FCA 2089
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - non-standard discovery - categories - application to be excused from compliance with order for discovery - alleged oppression - categories reformulated - application allowed in part.
↧
Raibevu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 2052
MIGRATION - mandatory visa cancellation - where visa cancelled on character grounds - where Assistant Minister decided not to revoke original decision - whether decision of the Assistant Minister unreasonable - whether Assistant Minister erred in failing to consider certain evidence - whether Assistant Minister required to make explicit reference to certain matters in his reasons for decision - whether Assistant Minister failed to give appropriate consideration to the risk of reoffending and the risk to the Australian community
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - no obligation to consider every statement in every annexure to a departmental submission
↧
Chamberlain, in the matter of The Renovator's Warehouse Gunnedah Pty Ltd (in liq) [2019] FCA 1
CORPORATIONS - winding up - application by the liquidator under s 477(2B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - whether appropriate for the Court to approve retrospectively under s 477(2B) the liquidator and company's entry into a deed of settlement and release with the company's directors - whether appropriate for the Court to grant approval under s 477(2B) for the liquidator and the company to enter into a legal retainer
↧
↧
BEL18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 2103
MIGRATION - fast track reviewable decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority ('Authority') under Pt 7AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - appeal from judicial review of the Authority's decision by the Federal Circuit Court - whether the Authority fell into jurisdictional error by proceeding in circumstances where the audio recording of the visa applicant's interview before the Minister's delegate was incomplete, or whether the Authority was unreasonable in proceeding in such circumstances - no jurisdictional error demonstrated - appeal dismissed
↧
Redarc Electronics Pty Ltd v B8 Systems Limited [2019] FCA 3
PATENTS - application for an interlocutory injunction - consideration of the test on an interlocutory injunction - consideration of the prima facie case - where basis of applicants' claim is infringement of a patent in respect of which the second applicant is the registered owner and (allegedly) the first applicant is exclusive licensee - where patent is an innovation patent - where alleged infringing product is a brake control unit - where respondents' defence to the applicants' claim is a denial that their product infringes the claims in the innovation patent and that the innovation patent is invalid on various grounds, including lack of novelty, s 40(2) and (3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) matters, lack of utility, lack of innovative step and not a manner of manufacture
PATENTS - consideration of the balance of convenience - whether balance of convenience favours the applicants' application for an interlocutory injunction because their product is a leading product in its business and it will suffer harm if it has to compete with the respondents' product in circumstances where the respondents were aware of the applicants' product, its pending or actual patent rights, and failed to take an earlier opportunity to oppose patent rights being granted to the second applicant - whether respondents will suffer irretrievable damage if an injunction is granted - whether damage to third persons and public interest is best served by refusing interlocutory injunction
↧
Notaras v Barcelona Pty Limited [2019] FCA 4
TRADE MARKS - appeal from decision of delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks - delegate held that appellant had failed to establish any of her grounds of opposition and that the respondent's trade mark application could proceed to registration - appellant's registered ATOMIC Word Mark in respect of coffee machines - appellant's registered ATOMIC Device Mark in respect of stove top coffee makers - respondent's application for registration of ATOMIC in respect of goods, including coffee cups, coffee, coffee beans, ground coffee and in respect of services, including retailing and wholesaling of coffee, coffee grinding, coffee roasting and cafes - whether respondent not the owner of the trade mark for the purposes of s 58 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) - whether appellant abandoned property in common law trade mark - whether respondent's trade mark substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, appellant's trade mark in respect of similar goods, being goods of the same description for the purposes of s 44 - whether respondent's trade mark in respect of services substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, appellant's trade mark in respect of closely related goods, being goods closely related to the respondent's services for the purposes of s 44 - whether honest concurrent use for the purposes of s 44 - whether appellant's mark had acquired a reputation in Australia such that use of respondent's mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion for the purposes of s 60 - whether Court should allow registration of respondent's mark subject to a geographical limitation to Western Australia
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
