Related Research Articles
In law,standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have,by demonstrating to the court,sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:
Native title refers to rights,recognised by Australian law,held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups or individuals to land that derive from their maintenance of their traditional laws and customs. These Aboriginal title rights were first recognised as a part of Australian common law with the decision of Mabo v Queensland in 1992. The doctrine was subsequently implemented and modified via statute with the Native Title Act 1993.
Mabo v Queensland,was a significant court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 8 December 1988. It found that the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985,which attempted to retrospectively abolish native title rights,was not valid according to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system,with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.
The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court of record which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law,along with some summary and indictable criminal matters. Cases are heard at first instance mostly by single judges. In cases of importance,a Full Court comprising three judges can be convened upon determination by the Chief Justice. The Court also has appellate jurisdiction,which is mostly exercised by a Full Court comprising three judges,the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia. In the Australian court hierarchy,the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the supreme courts of each of the states and territories. In relation to the other courts in the federal stream,it is superior to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for all jurisdictions except family law. It was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act.
Al-Kateb v Godwin,was a decision of the High Court of Australia,which ruled on 6 August 2004 that the indefinite detention of a stateless person was lawful. The case concerned Ahmed Al-Kateb,a Palestinian man born in Kuwait,who moved to Australia in 2000 and applied for a temporary protection visa. The Commonwealth Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the application was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. In 2002,Al-Kateb declared that he wished to return to Kuwait or Gaza. However,since no country would accept Al-Kateb,he was declared stateless and detained under the policy of mandatory detention.
Refugee Advocacy Service of South Australia Inc. (RASSA) is a non-profit Community Legal Centre in South Australia. It was set up in 2002 to represent asylum-seekers in the Federal Court of Australia. From about 2007,it was de-funded and ceased to exist. It has,however,now began functioning again in order to assist asylum-seekers in the community in South Australia whose applications are still being processed.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd,(Baxter) was a decision of the High Court of Australia,which ruled on 29 August 2007 that Baxter Healthcare Proprietary Limited,a tenderer for various government contracts,was bound by the Trade Practices Act 1974 in its trade and commerce in tendering for government contracts. More generally,the case concerned the principles of derivative governmental immunity:whether the immunity of a government from a statute extends to third parties that conduct business with the government.
Stephen Peter Estcourt is an Australian judge,who has been Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania since April 2013. From 2004 to 2013,he maintained barristers' chambers in Hobart and Melbourne,dividing his time between the two.
Yorta Yorta v Victoria was a native title claim by the Yorta Yorta,an Aboriginal Australian people of north central Victoria. The claim was dismissed by Justice Olney of the Federal Court of Australia in 1998. Appeals to the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia in 2001 and the High Court of Australia in 2002 were also dismissed.
Susan Coralie Kenny AM is a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia,and formerly a Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria,where she was the first woman to serve on the Court of Appeal.
Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Regional Seas Claim Group v Commonwealth of Australia [2013] HCA 33;250 CLR 209 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to Native title rights,their extension to other persons and their extinguishment by Statute.
Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia;Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of Australia is a decision of the High Court of Australia in its "original jurisdiction" under Section 75 of the Constitution of Australia. The plaintiffs were Sri Lankan citizens that had arrived at Christmas Island in 2010. They sought a declaration that they were not given the same procedural fairness as on-shore claimants. The court en banc ruled for the plaintiffs.
The Pakadji people,also known by the southern tribal exonym as the Koko Yao,are an Aboriginal Australian group of Cape York Peninsula in northern Queensland. The ethnonym Koko Yaʼo is said literally to mean " talk,speech" (koko/kuku) 'this way' (yaʼo),though this has been questioned.
The Uutaalnganu people,also known as Night Island Kawadji,are an Aboriginal Australian group of Cape York Peninsula in northern Queensland. The name is also used collectively for several peoples in this area,such as the Pontunj / Jangkonj (Yanganyu),whose language is unconfirmed.
Jacqueline Sarah Gleeson is an Australian judge. She has been a Justice of the High Court of Australia since 1 March 2021,and was a judge of the Federal Court of Australia,based in Sydney,from April 2014 to February 2021.
Northern Territory v Mr A. Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples [2019] HCA 7 is an Australian native title court case that was heard in the High Court of Australia. This case was an appeal by the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth of Australia of the decision handed down by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Northern Territory of Australia v Griffiths [2017] FCAFC 106. The High Court of Australia ruled to reduce the amount of compensation awarded to the Ngaliwurru People and the Nungali People by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. This compensation had been granted to the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples as a remedy for deeds taken by the Northern Territory Government that were previously established by the judicial system to have extinguished native title. The total amount of compensation awarded was reduced from $2,899,446 to $2,530,350. This compensation had been awarded for the monetary and non-monetary loss,as well as interest,associated with the extinguishment of native title. The decision made by the High Court meant the appeals made by the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth were "allowed in part". The case of Northern Territory v Mr Griffiths and Lorraine Jones has been labelled one of the most significant native title court cases since Mabo v Queensland and Mabo v Queensland. The Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples reside in Timber Creek,Northern Territory. The High Court granted special leave for the appeal on 16 February 2018. The High Court,which is situated in Canberra,had not heard a case in the Northern Territory prior to this.
Love v Commonwealth;Thoms v Commonwealth is a High Court of Australia case that held that Aboriginal Australians could not be classified as aliens under section 51(xix) of the Australian Constitution. The case was decided on 11 February 2020.
Benoy Berry &Global Secure Currency Limited v CCL Secure Pty Ltd is a decision of the High Court of Australia,concerning the assessment of damages for deliberately deceptive conduct under s82 of the Trade Practices Act.
CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting,[2022] HCA 1, was the first judgment of the High Court of Australia in 2022. It involved the employment relationship between an individual who signed a contract for services and a labour hire organisation. The High Court departed from the approach widely taken by lower courts in holding a "multi-factorial" approach to determining an employment relationship. The High Court found that the totality of the circumstances was not always the correct approach for identifying whether an individual was engaged as an employee or independent contractor. Rather,the contents of a contract may instead indicate the relationship. The High Court found the worker at the centre of the dispute between the parties was an employee of the labour hire agency for whom he had worked,rather than an independent contractor. The judgment means worker relationships will be defined by the terms of their contract.
References
- 1 2 3 4 5 "Ceremonial Sitting of the Full Court for the Swearing in and Welcome of the Honourable Justice Mortimer". Federal Court. 12 July 2013. Retrieved 13 November 2017– via AustLII.
- ↑ Gordon, Michael (27 November 2010). "Rebel with a cause". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 13 November 2017.
- ↑ "Past editorial committee".
- ↑ "Gender equality among barristers before the High Court". Thomson Reuters. 24 February 2017. Retrieved 13 November 2017.
- ↑ Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte SE [1998] HCA 72 (25 November 1998), High Court
- ↑ Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 41 (11 November 2010), High Court
- ↑ Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32 (31 August 2011), High Court
- ↑ Brown v Forestry Tasmania [2006] FCA 1729 (19 December 2006), Federal Court
- ↑ Forestry Tasmania v Brown [2007] FCAFC 186 (30 November 2007), Federal Court (Full Court)
- ↑ Racial Discrimination Act (Cth)
- ↑ Wotton v State of Queensland (No 5) [2016] FCA 1457 (5 December 2016), Federal Court
- ↑ Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Gibson [2017] FCA 240 (15 March 2017), Federal Court
- ↑ Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Gibson (No 3) [2017] FCA 1148 (28 September 2017), Federal Court
- ↑ Shrestha v Migration Review Tribunal [2015] FCAFC 87 (19 June 2015), Federal Court (Full Court)
- ↑ SZWBH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 88 (19 June 2015), Federal Court (Full Court)
- ↑ Richards, Stephanie (21 March 2018). ""Our ancestors will be smiling": Kaurna people gain native title rights". InDaily. Retrieved 16 May 2020.
- ↑ Richardson, Holly (25 November 2021). "Historic ruling hands massive tract of Cape York land back to traditional owners". ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation . Retrieved 4 January 2022.
- ↑ "National Native Title Register Details: QCD2021/007 - Uutaalnganu (Night Island) determination". National Native Title Tribunal . Retrieved 4 January 2022.
- ↑ "National Native Title Register Details:QCD2021/006 - Kuuku Ya'u". National Native Title Tribunal . Retrieved 4 January 2022.
- ↑ Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 3) (Uutaalnganu (Night Island) determination) [2021] FCA 1465
- ↑ "Federal Court to get its first female chief justice". ABC News. 31 March 2023. Retrieved 18 April 2023.