17 Aug 2023
The Court held both preliminary questions in the negative: ML 56’s boundaries did not move with changes to the Clutha River and MP 34’s boundaries are fixed by reference to the plan attached to the permit. The statutory requirement that mining boundaries be fixed at grant (s76 and the regulatory and administrative regime) and the need to prevent overlaps and uncertainty required fixed boundaries.
27 Jul 2023
The Deputy Registrar was correct that the proposed appeal did not raise a matter of general and public interest under reg 5(2)(b), but on review the Court found that, based on the applicants' provided financial information, there was a sufficient basis to grant fee waivers under reg 5(3)(b)(iii) for both applicants; the review is upheld and the waivers are granted allowing the leave application to be accepted for filing.
1 Oct 2020
The application was dismissed because the pleadings failed to identify a justiciable statutory decision or legal error by WorkSafe or the responsible ministers: WorkSafe complied with reg 19 by publishing a generic safety audit standard designed to be tailored via SOPs and dynamic risk management; the Minister could not lawfully direct WorkSafe in individual registration matters (Crown Entities Act s113); the territorial and EEZ statutes did not confer the powers sought; the matters alleged were predominantly policy or the subject of ongoing specialist investigations, making judicial mandamus…
3 Oct 2019
Interim relief was granted because the cancellation would take immediate effect and there was no evidence of ongoing risk at the centre, the applicant's statutory-interpretation challenge was arguable, the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending a prompt substantive hearing, and the respondent would suffer no prejudice from a short stay of the Gazette notice.
1 Aug 2019
The reviewer's decision to decline the claimed costs was correct: the submission was prepared and lodged by a family-member representative and not shown to be a qualifying specialist report; there was no evidence the appellant incurred liability for the invoiced amount; accordingly the Regulations do not permit the award claimed and the only applicable prescribed item (lodgement fee) appeared already met, so no further costs were payable.
17 Apr 2019
The imposition of IPA status on the plaintiff in these facts was ultra vires because it imposed an additional punishment beyond the five days off privileges penalty for the same PIN swapping offence, contravening the prohibition on double punishment in Schedule 7 cl 49 of the Corrections Regulations 2005; the Court limited its ruling to the applicant's case and did not decide the lawfulness of the IPA Regime per se because legality depends on individual circumstances and concrete facts.
15 Feb 2019
The Court held there was no evidence the April 2018 reassessment was retaliatory; any scoring error was inadvertent and rectified by statutory reconsideration under s 48; however Corrections initially relied impermissibly on behavioural factors already accounted for in the security classification when refusing to return the prisoner to low-medium accommodation contrary to reg 44(2), warranting a declaratory remedy; the refusal of voluntary segregation and any alleged denial of exercise were lawful because segregation lacked supporting information and the prisoner voluntarily declined offered…
8 May 2018
The Court held that the Regulations did not require the Law Society to exclude reference to open or unresolved complaints from certificates of standing; therefore the Society owed no statutory or contractual duty to provide certificates omitting open complaints and there was no tenable cause of action, so judgment entered for the defendant.
5 Dec 2017
The appeal is allowed in part: the statutory Review Costs Regulations apply to costs for the period up to withdrawal (award of the statutory maximum was proper), but fairness and the evidence of continued legal work after withdrawal (11 December 2016 to 28 February 2017) meant the applicant was entitled to a contribution to legal costs for that second stage; the applicant must provide a breakdown to the Corporation for assessment and the parties are to agree any appeal costs.
12 Nov 2013
The review was dismissed because the applicant's own response on the fee waiver form established that reg 18(2)(b)(ii) was not met (he indicated he would proceed regardless), so the Registrar correctly refused the waiver.