Uelese v Minister [2015] HCA 15
Nettle J in this case (at [100]) was against a reading of migration obligations that would make them ‘impossible or impractical’ to comply with. He referred to previous cases about this, and to the textbook Pearce & Geddes (at [2.38-2.39]) on ‘Consequences of a particular interpretation’.
iTip – care needs to be exercised in …
Queensland v Congoo [2015] HCA 17
Some people may still think legislative intention has something to do with what the collective called parliament subjectively intended a provision to mean. Nothing could be more wrong, as the High Court has again reminded us (at [36])2.
Legislative intention is really no more than a constitutional courtesy – that is, an …
Channel Pastoral v FCT [2015] FCAFC 57
What should we do when provisions in different sectors of the tax system collide? Answer – apply the hierarchy/harmony principles the High Court told us about in Project Blue Sky1. The provisions as a whole are presumed to be intended to produce harmonious goals. Conflict is alleviated by adjusting the meaning …
