Poole Borough Council v GN and another [2019] UKSC 25The UK Supreme Court (the Court) examined whether the local authority had failed to fulfil a common law duty to protect two children, Colin and Graham, from harm inflicted by their neighbours. Drawing on the facts of the case, the Court held that the council was not liable for negligently failing to exercise its social services functions as there was no recognisable basis for a cause of action. While the Court dismissed the appeal, the decision in Poole leaves open the possibility for a duty of care to exist where an assumption of responsibility can be established.

Jam et al v International Finance Corp (586 U.S. ____ 2019)In a landmark decision in which a group of Indian farmers and fishing communities sued the International Finance Corporation (IFC) in relation to pollution from a coal-fired power plant financed by them, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held that international organisations that have a sufficient nexus to the United States, such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation and World Bank, no longer enjoy full immunity from suit.

Minister for Home Affairs v Omar [2019] FCAFC 188The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has reminded Government decision-makers of their responsibility to properly consider risks of harm and threats to safety when cancelling or refusing a visa on ‘character’ grounds.The Court unanimously ruled that the Assistant Minister made a jurisdictional error in deciding not to revoke the cancellation of Mr Omar’s visa, by failing to adequately consider risks of harm he would face on return to Somalia, including by deferring a consideration of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations.

R (on the application of Edward Bridges) v The Chief Constable of South Wales [2019] EWHC 2341The High Court of England and Wales has confirmed that the use of automated facial recognition technology (AFR) to match the faces of members of the public against police watchlists is lawful.  The Court found that although the use of AFR infringes an individual’s right to respect for their privacy, the interference is justifiable for law enforcement purposes, and the current UK legal regime is adequate to ensure its appropriate and non-arbitrary use. This is the first time any court has considered AFR, and marks an important test for the legal parameters of this technology as it develops and is deployed more widely.

Cruse v State of Victoria [2019] VSC 574The recent decision in Cruse v State of Victoria [2019] VSC 574 concerns the use of force by police during a raid to arrest an individual suspected of committing a terrorist offence. The target of the raid sued the State of Victoria for injuries sustained during his arrest by police.

Comcare v Banerji [2019] HCA 23In a recent case, the High Court of Australia has confirmed there is not an unfettered right to the implied freedom of political communication and that Australian Public Service (APS) employees must at all times behave in a way that upholds the values of the APS, which extends to comments made anonymously on social media.  

Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [2019] ONCA 393Two policies required Ontario medical professionals to refer their patients to alternative health care providers, even if the medical professionals conscientiously objected on religious grounds to providing the health care.There were two key issues in this case:Did the mandatory referral policies infringe the right to freedom of religion?  If so, were the means chosen to limit the right demonstrably justified?Were the mandatory referral policies discriminatory?The Ontario Court of Appeal balanced the rights of patients to access equitable health care with the rights of physicians with religious convictions and held that: While the policies infringed the right to religious freedom, this was justified and reasonable in the circumstances; andThe policies did not discriminate against physicians with a religious belief.

Spence v Queensland [2019] HCA 15 The High Court (the Court) upheld the validity of Queensland anti-corruption measures which prohibit the making of political donations by property developers. The decision supports legislative efforts to improve transparency and accountability in electoral funding. However, it may also be seen as giving permission to parliaments to ban political donations from certain classes of donors even where strong evidence of corruption is lacking.

Kathleen Clubb v Alyce Edwards & Anor; John Graham Preston v Elizabeth Avery & Anor [2019] HCA 11 (10 April 2019)In this landmark decision, the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of safe access zone laws in Victoria and Tasmania, in particular, provisions that prohibit certain communications and protests about abortion within 150 metres of abortion clinics.

Northern Territory of Australia v Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples & Anor; Commonwealth of Australia v Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples & Anor; Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples v Northern Territory of Australia & Anor [2019] HCA 7The High Court in hearing its first ever native title compensation case, ultimately reduced the amount of native title awarded to the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples of Timber Creek (Claimants). However, significantly, the Court rejected the appellants’ arguments against the cultural loss amount, upholding the trial judge’s original determination of $1.3 million.

Eiseman-Renyard v the United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, First Section, Application No 57884/17, 5 March 2019) On 5 March 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (First Section) (the Court) declared inadmissible the applications of eight individuals who claimed that their arrests and subsequent detentions in London during Prince William and Catherine Middleton's wedding were a breach of their rights to liberty and security under art 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).

Various Applicants from Santa Teresa v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) [2019] NTCAT 7The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) has awarded compensation to Aboriginal tenants in the remote community of Santa Teresa over the Northern Territory government's failure to provide habitable public housing. Residents of 70 households in Santa Teresa brought the action against the Northern Territory government. In this decision, the first four of these cases proceeded to hearing, and the Tribunal awarded compensation in each case.