New HCA case stemming from NZYQ

Know someone that might be interested in our email newsletter?

Daily wrap  

• Refugee charged with breaching curfew launches high court challenge to released detainees’ visa conditions | Australian immigration and asylum | The Guardian
   

• Zachary Rolfe loses bid to avoid answering questions about night he shot Kumanjayi Walker dead | Northern Territory | The Guardian
   

• Law firm workers restrain alleged gunman after man shot on ninth floor of office in Sydney CBD
   

  • The building where the shooting allegedly took place is home to multiple law firms, including the Consulate General of Greece and O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors - Office workers' heroic act after man shot in Sydney CBD
     

• Legal sector weights findings of sexual harassment review - ABC News
   

• Law experts say COVID vaccine mandate ruling will see 'wave of claims' before court
   

  • Clive Palmer claims ‘great victory’ in funding challenge to Queensland’s Covid vaccine mandate | Queensland | The Guardian
     

  • What does Queensland’s Covid-19 mandates ruling mean for other vaccines and other states? | Human Rights Act | The Guardian
     

• Australia needs dedicated body to investigate people accused of international crimes like genocide, legal experts claim | Australia news | The Guardian
   

• Crypto king’s passport seized amid criminal case over $50m collapse [The Australian paywall]

  The Chinese director of Blockchain Global has been banned from leaving Australia while a criminal investigation looks into the $50m collapse of the firm.
   

  • A copy of the judgment of Button J can be found here - Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Guo [2024] FCA 125
     

Editor’s picks

• Sharif v Vitruvian Investments Pty Ltd (No 5) [2024] FCA 134
   

  • [65] “Some of the legal practitioners who undertook work for Mr Sharif were not on the Register of Practitioners kept by the High Court of Australia at the time of undertaking the work. It is submitted by the Vitruvian Defendants that, in consequence, costs for work done by those legal practitioners can only be claimed at the rate applicable for work done by graduates or clerks. They rely upon the reasoning of O'Callaghan J in Jadwan Pty Ltd v Rae & Partners (A Firm) (No 7) [2022] FCA 1174 at [27]-[37] where his Honour concluded that: 'The fees "which are" the subject of a taxation certificate from a taxing officer must be payable to a practitioner whose name appears on the Register of Practitioners kept by the High Court of Australia pursuant to s 55C of the Judiciary Act'.”

   

For enquiries contact [email protected]