Second High Court challenge to laws passed following NZYQ - 30 Nov 2023

Don’t forget to tell your friends and colleagues about our free newsletter!

After two referrals you will receive an AI generated image of Edelman J and his pet fish. After three referrals you will receive Headnote's 8 page PDF of tech tips that will make you a better lawyer.

Daily wrap  

Quiet news day yesterday

• Lawyer for Afghan refugee says challenge being launched against 'unnecessary and disproportionate laws'

   

• Electric vehicle owners to be repaid millions charged under Victoria’s invalid road tax | Electric vehicles | The Guardian

   

• Brittany Higgins felt ‘hurt’ and ‘abandoned’ by Liberal Party after alleging Bruce Lehrmann raped her | Australia news | The Guardian

   

• Ten new crimes will be added to Queensland's double jeopardy legislation. Here's what it means

   

• Former detective tells inquest police failed to test 'critical evidence' in deaths of teenage cousins

   

• WA government apologises to Indigenous people for decades of wage theft and workplace discrimination - ABC News

   

Editor’s picks

• Latest Decisions of Interest - NSW Court of Appeal 

   

• Rupert Murdoch to be deposed in Smartmatic defamation case | Rupert Murdoch | The Guardian

   

• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) (No 2) [2023] FCA 1234

   

  • PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for stay of proceedings – where criminal proceedings commenced in Magistrates Court of Western Australia in relation to overlapping factual matrix – where related criminal proceedings is a private prosecution – where the accused in the criminal proceeding is a corporation – where the applicants are regulators and there is a public interest in the civil proceeding – where the pleadings in the civil proceedings have not closed – where there was overlap in witnesses between the civil and criminal proceedings – whether the interests of justice require an immediate stay of the civil proceeding - Held: application dismissed.

     

• Dorman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 335 (27 November 2023)

   

  • [29] It was also necessary to reiterate the risk of a personal costs order to Mr Rogers. At that point in the proceedings, when the Commission began to put Mr Rogers on notice of these matters, he abruptly interjected and said:

     

    MR ROGERS: That's never going to happen. I won't be paying those costs and we'll simply appeal the matter Commissioner. If you don't want to do your job, we'll get someone else to do it.

    [Mr Rogers did in fact get a personal costs order against him]

   

Our newsletter is free. All we ask from you is to spread the word about our newsletter (we’d especially love if you talked about us on your socials - we’re on Linkedin, Instagram and Twitter)!

The Headnote team

For best viewing use the read online link at the top of this email.

For feedback and enquiries - [email protected]