DMQ20 v Minister [2023] FCAFC 84
Generally, the same expression in a statute takes the same meaning, while different expressions indicate different meanings. This is not to be pressed too far, and ‘is of very slight force’ if the words are clear7.
The presumption is also muted where differences in wording can be attributed to the scope or …
DN v Secretary [2023] NSWSC 595
The issue was whether the Children’s Court had jurisdiction to vary a care order made after children were placed with UK carers10. The mother (DN) argued that there was no power to vary the order.
Kunc J rejected this. The jurisdiction of courts is to be construed broadly11, and more …
Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 553
Tickle alleged discrimination on the basis of gender identity12. This complaint was later withdrawn and a new one lodged out of time. Despite the ordinary position that the singular includes the plural in statutes13, Giggle argued that, for policy and finality reasons, the statute envisaged only …
Whitebull HTL Pty Ltd v ILGA [2023] NSWSC 588
Specific powers in a statute exclude access to more general ones15. ILGA purported to exercise general powers under one statute to limit gaming machine numbers. Whitebull challenged this, arguing that a second statute set out exclusively, and more precisely, how numbers were to be regulated.
McNaughton J surveyed the …
Commissioner of Police v TM [2023] NSWCA 75
A minor had child abuse material on 3 devices. He was convicted for each4 and his name entered on the Child Protection Register5. He argued that a minor who commits a ‘single offence’ (extended to cover ‘more than one offence of the same kind arising from the same incident’) …
Reid v City of Gosnells [2023] WASC 48
The council and a resident disputed the meaning of ‘or other purposes’ in a planning scheme covering a new council facility9. The facility was to be used for activities including waste management. The resident said this was unlawful under the ejusdem generis rule applied to read down general words within …
DWD Project v NTEPA [2023] NTCA 3
DWD dumped polluted fill on Crown land. It said (A) that pollution notices were invalid as they omitted the words ‘on reasonable grounds’ after ‘I believe’11, and (B) that the notices therefore could not sustain convictions for non-compliance – both rejected.
Substantial rather than strict compliance with forms is permitted at …
Rusiecki v Western Australia [2023] WASCA 81
A drug conviction was appealed on the basis methylamphetamine was not a ‘prohibited drug’ at the relevant time. Regulations referred to the list of drugs in Schedule 1 of the Poisons Standard14. Shortly before the offence took place, however, Schedule 1 was repealed and the list relocated to Schedule 2. The …
Arik v Vicinity Centres PM Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 94
Arik had a ‘slip and fall’ accident. A medical panel later found that she had not suffered a ‘significant injury’ in accordance with AMA guides on what constituted ‘significant injury’ for the purposes of the legislation?6
Guides are not statutes but the same general interpretation principles are applied to …
Laundy Hotels v Dyco Hotels [2023] HCA 6
This recent case on the legal effect of pandemic restrictions in default situation is important because a full bench of the High Court repeats (at [27]) the basic principles of contractual interpretation –
“It is well established that the terms of a commercial contract are to be understood objectively, by what a …
