The Federal Court of Australia (the Court) has upheld a subpoena to produce documents issued against three civil society organisations. These organisations are now required to produce internal documents and are at risk of having to pay a large corporation’s costs in association with proceedings that they were not a party to.
Read MoreMark Panazzolo (the employee), a diesel mechanic, was successful in his claim against his former employer, Don’s Mechanical and Diesel Service Pty Ltd (Don’s Auto/the employer), for disability-based discrimination.
Read MoreOn 23 August, the Federal Court found that ‘Giggle for Girls’ had indirectly discriminated against a transgender woman by excluding her from an app which was designed as a ‘women-only safe space.’ This is the first court decision that determined that the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) protects transgender women from discrimination on the basis of their gender identity.
Read MoreOn 8 February 2023, the Victorian Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from Cotterill v Romanes [2013] VSC 498.
The Court of Appeal held that directions made in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic under the emergency powers in the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) (PHW Act) did not impermissibly burden the freedom of political communication implied in the Commonwealth Constitution.
Justice Mossop of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory has found that an accused person, Alexander (a pseudonym), was imprisoned in contravention of section 19 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) in circumstances where they were on remand and imprisoned with people who had been convicted. Alexander’s right to be separated from convicted prisoners was not restricted by the operation of section 44 of the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) (CMA). Accordingly, his Honour found that the requirements for “special or exceptional circumstances” favouring a grant of bail under section 9D of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) (Bail Act) were satisfied.
Read MoreThe Victorian Supreme Court upheld the defendants' application for summary dismissal but granted leave for the plaintiff to reformulate his claim, in a representative proceeding (class action) challenging the validity of the decision to demolish three public housing towers in Melbourne. Justice Richards held the plaintiff's claim had no real prospect of success because the claim did not identify a decision that the plaintiff had standing to seek judicial review remedies for. The lack of justiciability of the decision was fatal to both the jurisdictional error ground and the Charter grounds in this matter.
Read MoreOn 30 November 2023, the Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that the plaintiff, BZN, had not proven that the final review decision, which affirmed the findings of an investigation into his alleged sexual assault of a child, was: legally invalid; or unlawful under section 59 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ('HRA').
The judgment offers insights into how the HRA applies to public authorities and the standards they must meet in making decisions that adequately consider human rights.
Kamaljit Kaur Athwal successfully brought an action against the State of Queensland seeking a declaration that the restriction on possessing a knife for religious reasons inside a school was inconsistent with the federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (‘RDA’).
Read MoreCurtin AJ of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Supreme Court has refused to grant an extension of time to bring claims for compensation or damages under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) to persons who allege their human rights were infringed by a public authority, being the Australian Capital Territory (Territory), because of the finding that the claims were futile. The case contains helpful discussion of the operation of the HRA.
Read MoreOn 10 May 2024, the High Court handed down its judgment in the case of ASF17. The decision followed the High Court’s ruling in NZYQ in November 2023, in which the Court held it was unlawful for the Australian Government to continue detaining a person in immigration detention where there was no real prospect of the person’s removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.
That case was brought by a plaintiff who was both stateless and engaged Australia’s international protection obligations. In ASF17, the Court considered whether the same limitation on detention applied to a person who did not have a formal protection finding, but could not be removed because his country of origin refuses to accept the forced return of its citizens and he had not consented to return.
Read More
ZH (Tanzania) FC (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4 (1 February 2011)
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has held that the 'best interests of the child' should be the first consideration where children are affected by the decision to remove or deport one or both of their parents. While the best interests of the child can be cumulatively outweighed by other factors in determining proportionality, no consideration is inherently more significant than the best interests of the child.
Read MoreSuppiah & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2 (Admin) (11 January 2011)
The High Court of England and Wales decided that two families who had sought asylum in the United Kingdom were detained unlawfully by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Defendant) because the Defendant failed to have regard to its duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
Read MoreA, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] UKSC 8 (26 November 2009)
The difficulty in determining age has become prominent as a consequence of the increased movement of children around the world, and specifically the increased migration of unaccompanied young people. It is an issue of particular significance, for a number of reasons. States often have – or at least, ought to have – different policies and procedures in place in relation to the treatment of asylum seekers who are children. These may relate, for example, to the provision of guardianship, the provision of legal aid, conditions of any ‘detention’, the substantive consideration of whether the asylum seeker satisfies the requisite test (ie the refugee definition), or access to particular social entitlements (housing, welfare, education etc).
Read MoreAS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 1118 (15 October 2008)
The England and Wales Court of Appeal recently allowed an appeal against a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal regarding the deportation of AS, a Pakistani national. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in two respects: first, in finding that deportation would not interfere with AS’ right to respect for his private and family life (under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights), and second, in its assessment of proportionality.
Read MoreD and E v Australia, HRC, Communication No 1050/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/87/D/1050/2002 (25 July 2006)
The UN Human Rights Committee (‘the Committee’) recently handed down its latest in a string of decisions concerning Australia’s policy of mandatory immigration detention. The authors of the complaint were two Iranian nationals who, together with their two children, arrived in Australiaby boat in November 2000. Pursuant to Australia’s policy, the four were held in immigration detention for a total of three years and two months. During their period of mandatory detention, the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) effectively precluded judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention, while their applications for asylum were rejected. The four were ultimately granted Global Special Humanitarian visas on 13 March 2006.
Read More