Martinus Rail v Qube (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 1483
An adjudicator awarded full costs where, on his reasoning, only 96.07% was allowable. The question was whether this involved jurisdictional error due to ‘legal unreasonableness’. This, noted Parker J (at [48]), was a question of statutory interpretation.
It was held the error was simply arithmetical, ‘not a contestable error of legal …
Gill v Liverpool City Council [2024] NSWLEC 133
Mortgagees of land compulsorily acquired objected to the compensation amount offered. The issue was whether the mortgagees could force joinder of the owner, who had not objected to the offer. The statute said that the court ‘may order that any other person [with an interest] be joined as a party’6.…
Elisha v Vision Australia [2024] HCA 50
The High Court rarely says very much about the basic principles applied in working out what a contract means. In this case (at [38]), the plurality stated –
The meaning of the terms of the … Contract … ‘is to be determined by what a reasonable person would have understood [the terms] to …
Cipla Australia v Novo Nordisk [2024] FCA 1414
E86 reported on Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd, where the High Court said that it expects lower courts to follow ‘seriously considered dicta’ of a majority of that court13. Much has been said about the outworking of this principle since it was reconfirmed in 202214.
Perram J …
Vicinity Funds v Commissioner [2024] VSC 658
This case is about duties payable on transfer of Myer sites in Melbourne. Each site was subject to a 299 year lease, with rent of $1pa. Duty was payable on the greater of consideration and unencumbered value7. Were the leases an ‘encumbrance’? Answer ‘no’.
Parliament is generally presumed to be aware …
Williams v Toyota Motor Corp [2024] HCA 38
The little word ‘or’ often causes problems. Here, it was used between paragraphs in the definition of ‘affected person’ in manufacturer damage clauses.
Usually ‘or’ is read disjunctively to produce discrete options to be met. Jagot J (at [155]) confirmed that this is not always the case, and that ‘or’ may have …
FCT v Patrix Prestige [2024] FCAFC 148
Headings are taken into account in interpretation11, but their practical impact varies. One issue in this case was the effect of the phrase ‘Changes of use’ in headings to luxury car tax adjustment provisions12.
The key point made by the court (at [19]) was that headings are ‘often …
FCT v Esso Australia [2024] FCAFC 151
The meaning of phrases like ‘in relation to’ depends on context. The issue in this case was whether fees paid to Esso under contract were ‘assessable tolling receipts’ for being ‘consideration receivable … in relation to the processing of … internal petroleum’14.
Context is determined by the text, purpose and history, …
SkyCity Adelaide v Treasurer [2024] HCA 37
30 years ago, the High Court said it ‘would be quite circular to construe the words of a definition by reference to the term defined’5. Other courts saw this as out-of-step with how we are to read statutes6.
In SkyCity, the court said (at [32]) there is no …
HBSY Pty Ltd v Lewis [2024] HCA 35
In this cross-vesting case, 3 key principles of our interpretation system are touched on – always speaking, statutory harmony and objective enquiry.
On the first 2, Gageler CJ (at [53]) said that legislation is always speaking in the present. Statutes must be construed as currently in force given parliament ‘intends its legislation …
