R v Wiggins (No 7) [2022] NSWSC 1249
W was charged with murder and another offence. He had priors for violence plus a long-term association with bikie gangs. In dispute was whether s 110(3) of the Evidence Act 1995, which allows character evidence to be led ‘in a particular respect’ without putting general character into issue, prevented him leading …
BBlood Enterprises v FCT [2022] FCA 1112
In this share buy-back case, Thawley J (at [119]) said the idea that the meaning of a statutory definition cannot be controlled by the term defined8 ‘is not an inflexible rule’ of interpretation9. The issue was whether the word ‘reimbursement’ as part of the term defined controlled or limited the …
DJ v DPP (WA) [2022] WASC 303
This case raised what are ‘special circumstances’ in an application to disregard young offender convictions11. Smith J (at [58-63]) looked at other statutory contexts, of which there are many, where the same expression is used. These confirmed that the subject case must be ‘different in kind’.
An important point of general …
Kelly v CFMMEU [2022] FCAFC 130
An application for a secret ballot was made to determine if a division of the union might become a separate organisation12. One issue was whether the division was a ‘separately identifiable constituent part’ of an amalgamated organisation under a statutory definition. The union said general words in the definition should be read …
Olde English Tiles v TfNSW [2022] NSWCA 108
OET occupied land under a bare licence terminable at will with no market value. When the land was compulsorily acquired, OET claimed compensation in what SMH called a ‘high-stakes The Castle-style’ stoush5. OET argued it had a compensable ‘interest’, namely a ‘privilege over, or in connection with, the land’, …
Hitchcock v Reed [2022] NSWLEC 81
Development consents are statutory instruments governed by the same rules of construction as statutes7, as Robson J observed here (at [61-63]). R’s development consent would have lapsed if work had not physically commenced8. The work had begun, but conditions in the consent were not met. Did this mean the work …
R v Jacobs Group [2022] NSWCCA 152
JG pleaded guilty to foreign bribery offences11. One maximum penalty was potentially three times the ‘benefit’ JG obtained from the offence. ‘Benefit’ was used elsewhere in the same section to mean gross (not net) benefit. Did it take the same meaning here?
No, said Bell CJ (at [98-99]). Although words ‘ordinarily’ …
D&D Traffic Management v AWU [2022] FCAFC 113
This case (at [47-48]) summarises principles for interpreting industrial awards. Similar to statutes, the starting point is the natural and ordinary meaning of the award’s words, ‘read as a whole and in context’, with regard to history and subject matter.
Importantly, awards are designed for specific industries, so cannot be read ‘in …
R v RB [2022] NSWCCA 142
Statements in extrinsic materials cannot be substituted for the statutory text1. They may reveal legislative purpose, but must be subjected to scrutiny and treated with caution. They can also be wrong2, as this case shows. The issue was whether sex offence provisions required a relationship to exist or merely the …
BXS20 v Minister [2022] FedCFamC2G 515
Calculation of administrative fees often presents problems. In this case, various factors (including increases) made the fees ‘more difficult to calculate’5. But this ‘did not render the effect of the provisions uncertain’, as Judge Laing held (at [32]).
The court was bound to give effect to the regulations ‘even where they require …
