FCT v Shell Energy Holdings [2022] FCAFC 2
To depreciate the cost of an additional interest in statutory titles, Shell had to show the activities undertaken were for ‘exploration’11. That term was informed by the way it was used in petroleum laws12. In this context, ‘exploration’ took no narrow meaning and a deduction was available.
Allsop …
Sri Guru Gobind Singh v Minister [2022] FCA 118
Was the phrase ‘and includes’ to be read exhaustively as ‘means and includes’ in this migration case? An analysis of the regulation (at [126-128]) revealed no aim to limit the meaning of ‘adverse information’ to the items listed in the relevant definition. It followed that ‘and includes’ should take its natural …
In a recent patents case, Edelman J made observations about the importance of context and purpose in interpretation1. The general point (at [97]) is that fixing the meaning of express words, drawing inferences within a provision or implying new content into one are all best considered as a kind of ‘continuum’. The judge made 2 points. First, implications …
Perpetual Corporate Trust v CST [2022] SASC 7
Should tax exemptions be read liberally? A stamp duty provision conferred a broad exemption on property not used for ‘residential purposes’4. Exemptions having a purpose to benefit a class of activity are generally to be read liberally5. This reflects the principle that ‘all legislation is to be construed …
Stefanski v Western Australia [2022] WASCA 5
The instruction to ‘start with the statute’ has particular bite when it comes to legislative codes replacing the common law. This appeal raised criminal code ‘unsoundness of mind’ provisions regarding intentional intoxication or stupefaction8.
Buss P (at [119-120]) said the code had to be read ‘without any presumption that it was …
Lanigan v Circus Oz [2022] VSC 35
A performer took VCAT harassment proceedings against the circus. One issue was whether VCAT was a ‘court’ for limitation of action purposes11. VCAT had been held to be a ‘court’ for other purposes12.
McDonald J (at [35]) held it was not a ‘court’ here. The statutory framework was different …
ACCC v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 98
The starting idea that the same word used in the same statute takes the same meaning has near mythic status14. In this competition case, Downes J (at [281]) said that, where the same concepts are used in a suite of provisions, ‘a consistent meaning should ordinarily be given’15…
In Stanley v DPP, Basten JA draws attention to one of the most basic basics of our system1. The judge channelled Project Blue Sky in turn quoting Bennion2 – ‘The distinction between literal and legal meaning lies at the heart of the problem of statutory interpretation. An enactment consists of a verbal formula. Unless defectively worded, …
NSW Bar Association v EFA [2021] NSWCA 339
A drunken barrister approached a female clerk at a dinner and suggested oral sex. The tribunal found he had not engaged in ‘professional misconduct’, which included ‘conduct … that would … justify a finding that the lawyer is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice’4. The …
Tay v Building Services Board [2021] WASC 433
Did engineering activities involve supervising ‘building construction’ for the purposes of someone becoming a building service practitioner8. In this case, not all the provisions, regulations and forms fitted together that well. Hill J (at [83-84]) stressed that, where possible, provisions of an Act must be understood as part of ‘the …
