The Victorian County Court has recognised invasion of privacy as an actionable right under Australian common law which allowed the plaintiff to obtain relief for harm caused by information disclosed but not otherwise captured by alternate causes of action.
Read MoreIn the much publicised case of Australian Tax Office (ATO)whistleblower Richard Boyle, the South Australian Court of Appeal has found that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) (the Act) does not provide whistleblowers with immunity from criminal, civil or administrative liability for actions taken in gathering evidence to support public interest disclosures (PID).
Read MoreIn the much publicised case of Australian Tax Office (ATO) whistleblower Richard Boyle, the South Australian Court of Appeal has found that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) (the Act) does not provide whistleblowers with immunity from criminal, civil or administrative liability for actions taken in gathering evidence to support public interest disclosures (PID).
Read MoreThe Federal Court of Australia (the Court) has upheld a subpoena to produce documents issued against three civil society organisations. These organisations are now required to produce internal documents and are at risk of having to pay a large corporation’s costs in association with proceedings that they were not a party to.
Read MoreMark Panazzolo (the employee), a diesel mechanic, was successful in his claim against his former employer, Don’s Mechanical and Diesel Service Pty Ltd (Don’s Auto/the employer), for disability-based discrimination.
Read MoreOn 23 August, the Federal Court found that ‘Giggle for Girls’ had indirectly discriminated against a transgender woman by excluding her from an app which was designed as a ‘women-only safe space.’ This is the first court decision that determined that the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) protects transgender women from discrimination on the basis of their gender identity.
Read MoreOn 8 February 2023, the Victorian Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from Cotterill v Romanes [2013] VSC 498.
The Court of Appeal held that directions made in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic under the emergency powers in the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) (PHW Act) did not impermissibly burden the freedom of political communication implied in the Commonwealth Constitution.
Justice Mossop of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory has found that an accused person, Alexander (a pseudonym), was imprisoned in contravention of section 19 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) in circumstances where they were on remand and imprisoned with people who had been convicted. Alexander’s right to be separated from convicted prisoners was not restricted by the operation of section 44 of the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) (CMA). Accordingly, his Honour found that the requirements for “special or exceptional circumstances” favouring a grant of bail under section 9D of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) (Bail Act) were satisfied.
Read MoreThe Victorian Supreme Court upheld the defendants' application for summary dismissal but granted leave for the plaintiff to reformulate his claim, in a representative proceeding (class action) challenging the validity of the decision to demolish three public housing towers in Melbourne. Justice Richards held the plaintiff's claim had no real prospect of success because the claim did not identify a decision that the plaintiff had standing to seek judicial review remedies for. The lack of justiciability of the decision was fatal to both the jurisdictional error ground and the Charter grounds in this matter.
Read MoreOn 30 November 2023, the Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that the plaintiff, BZN, had not proven that the final review decision, which affirmed the findings of an investigation into his alleged sexual assault of a child, was: legally invalid; or unlawful under section 59 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ('HRA').
The judgment offers insights into how the HRA applies to public authorities and the standards they must meet in making decisions that adequately consider human rights.
Kamaljit Kaur Athwal successfully brought an action against the State of Queensland seeking a declaration that the restriction on possessing a knife for religious reasons inside a school was inconsistent with the federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (‘RDA’).
Read MoreThe high-profile dispute between the Office of the eSafety (‘eSafety’) Commissioner and X Corp (formerly known as Twitter) has tested key powers of Australia’s Online Safety Act and stimulated spirited debate on the interplay between online safety laws and rights to freedom of expression. eSafety sought enforcement of a removal notice pertaining to a bundle of content showing the high-profile stabbing in Sydney of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. The Federal Court refused to extend an ex parte interim injunction against X Corp, and held that geo-blocking is a reasonable step for removing content pursuant to a removal notice under section 109 of the Online Safety Act. The judgment suggests Parliament should clarify the meaning of ‘all reasonable steps’ in the context of the Online Safety Act.
Read MoreOn 9 April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ('ECHR') handed down rulings in three important matters concerning the human rights impacts of climate change. These rulings highlight the ECHR's stance on the human rights implications of national climate policies.
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Queensland has found that directions issued by the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service and the Director General of Queensland Health to their employees were unlawful under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ('HRA') or of no effect. Injunctions were granted to restrain the enforcement of the directions. In a separate proceeding, applicants who challenged the validity of directions issued by the Chief Health Officer were found to not have standing and the application was consequently dismissed.
This summary focuses on the aspects of the judgments that relate to the HRA.
Read MoreCurtin AJ of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Supreme Court has refused to grant an extension of time to bring claims for compensation or damages under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) to persons who allege their human rights were infringed by a public authority, being the Australian Capital Territory (Territory), because of the finding that the claims were futile. The case contains helpful discussion of the operation of the HRA.
Read MoreOn 10 May 2024, the High Court handed down its judgment in the case of ASF17. The decision followed the High Court’s ruling in NZYQ in November 2023, in which the Court held it was unlawful for the Australian Government to continue detaining a person in immigration detention where there was no real prospect of the person’s removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.
That case was brought by a plaintiff who was both stateless and engaged Australia’s international protection obligations. In ASF17, the Court considered whether the same limitation on detention applied to a person who did not have a formal protection finding, but could not be removed because his country of origin refuses to accept the forced return of its citizens and he had not consented to return.
Read MoreIn an important decision on protest rights in England, the High Court of Justice has found that amendments made by the Secretary of State to the Public Order Act 1986 (‘POA Act’) were unlawful. The amended regulations had the effect of lowering the threshold of police intervention in protests. In its decision, the Court considered four grounds of challenges and accepted two of them. The decision is useful in understanding what is considered to be unlawful and the limitations in circumventing legislative processes.
Read MoreThe New Zealand Supreme Court has delivered a landmark decision on a case brought by Māori elder, Mike Smith, against seven of New Zealand's largest greenhouse gas emitters.
Prior to this decision, the common law had entrenched the prevailing orthodoxy that tort claims could not be used to challenge or address climate change and that the regulation of greenhouse gas emitters was best left to the other branches of government through statutory regulation.
This case is significant as it marks one of the first decisions where a court has recognised that tort law can be used to challenge the greenhouse gas emissions of a private entity.
Alex Gutierrez successfully brought proceedings against MUR Shipping (‘MUR’) for breaches of the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth). On 4 May 2023, the Australian Federal Court allowed an appeal challenging the damages awarded to Mr Gutierrez by the Federal Circuit and Family Court. The Court found in favour of Mr Gutierrez, substantially increasing his general damages and awarding him damages for economic loss.
Read MoreOn 17 April 2023, the Victorian Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) in favour of the respondent, Ms Tsikos, and dismissed the appeal by Austin Health. Although the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, none of the grounds were successful, instead agreeing with the single instance judgment and finding that VCAT had erred in its original decision.
Read MoreThis matter relates to a decision pursuant to §1514A(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 which allows whistleblower employees to seek relief against an employer that makes an adverse personnel decision against the employee because of their whistleblowing activity.
The United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower who invokes §1514A must prove that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavourable personnel action but need not prove that their employer acted with “retaliatory intent”.
Read MoreThe Federal Court dismissed two judicial review proceedings brought by the by the Environment Council of Central Queensland (‘ECoCeQ’) regarding the climate change effects of scope 3 coal mining emissions to Matters of National Environmental Significance under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
Read MoreThe Federal Court dismissed an application made by Save the Children Australia for habeas corpus of 34 women and children held in camps in North-East Syria finding that the Minister for Home Affairs and the Commonwealth of Australia did not have control over their detainment. However, the Court in a separate decision made no order as to costs, in an important decision on costs in public interest litigation.
Read MoreIn VZW Klimaatzaak v Kingdom of Belgium & Others (Klimaatzaak), the Brussels Court of Appeal ordered that Belgium and the Flemish and Brussels-Capital Regions reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
Read MoreTwo environmental activists who challenged New South Wales’ recently reformed anti-protest laws have been in-part successful. The Supreme Court declared parts of section 214A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Crimes Act) invalid for impermissibly burdening the Commonwealth Constitution’s implied freedom of political communication.
Read MoreIn the case of Young v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) [2023] HCA 31, the High Court allowed an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory Supreme Court, which concerned the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of the Northern Territory’s power under section 122 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1999 (NT) (Act).
Read MoreThis case raises important human rights considerations of privacy and the State acting in the best interests of the child, in relation to the State’s retention of a child’s DNA information. Without the Victorian Charter, these fundamental considerations would not have been taken into account.
Read MoreA Queensland non-profit organisation has successfully applied to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) for an exemption to employ only women.
Read MoreIn Kaplan v State of Victoria (No 8) [2023] FCA 1092 (14 September 2023), the State of Victoria was found vicariously liable for a school principal’s failure to adequately respond to antisemitic bullying by students.
Read MoreVictorian Tribunal refuses to strike out use of the Human Rights Charter ground in planning decision.
Read MoreOn 23 June 2023, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCA) found that Sydney Trains had unlawfully discriminated against Ms Renee Annovazzi (Ms Annovazzi) by dismissing her, prohibiting her participation in the trainee drivers course and requesting a medical note regarding her disabilities.
Read MoreWaratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21 (25 November 2022) involved the Land Court of Queensland making recommendations to the [Queensland] Minister for Resources (Minister) and the Chief Executive of the Department of Environment and Science (Chief Executive) on Waratah Coal Pty Ltd's (Waratah) applications for a mining lease and environmental authority to mine thermal coal in the Galilee Basin.
Read MoreThe applicant, Mr Raphael Halet, argued that his criminal convictions arising from disclosure of confidential corporate information constituted an infringement of Article 10 of the Convention, being his right to freedom of expression.
Read MoreAfter “an urgent hearing of what became a non-urgent case”,1 the High Court found that a provision of NSW legislation did in fact burden the implied freedom of political communication. The High Court also determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear or decide upon the validity of a repealed section of the same legislation, as it was no longer a sufficient “matter”.
Read MoreThe Federal Court of Canada found that the Canadian government had violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by failing to take all reasonable steps to repatriate the applicants in this case, who were Canadian citizens imprisoned in northeastern Syria on suspicion of being involved with Daesh/ISIS.
Read MoreIn an important judgment delivered on 22 December 2022, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Rangiah and S Derrington JJ) found that an aggregate sentence of imprisonment did not constitute a single ‘term of imprisonment for 12 months or more,’ and therefore did not attract the operation of the mandatory visa cancellation powers at s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
Read MoreBy a majority, the High Court of Australia has found Google not liable in defamation when it hyperlinked defamatory material on its search engine. In doing so, the Court found that Google had not acted as the publisher of that material.
Read MoreThe United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) concluded in September 2022 that Australia breached the rights of Torres Strait Islanders to enjoy their culture, and be free from arbitrary interferences with their private life, family, and home under (as enshrined in articles 27 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)).
Read MoreOn appeal, the New Zealand Supreme Court has found that laws setting the voting age for New Zealanders at 18 are inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of age, as set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZ) (Bill of Rights). Accordingly, a majority of the Court granted the appeal and made a declaration of inconsistency.
Read MoreAtem Deng (Deng) spent 58 days in custody and was released after charges were dismissed.
Read MoreThe proceeding involved a challenge to the validity of the prohibitions in ss 11 and 12, in their operation with s 8, of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW). It was held that the provisions were valid and did not place an unnecessary burden on the implied freedom of political communication.
Read MoreThe Applicant’s husband, Mr Sorin Parvu, was killed during an incident on 26 September 2009, when police mistook Mr Parvu for an international fugitive they had been attempting to intercept and arrest.
Read MoreThis case is an important example of indirect discrimination and how the Disability Discrimination Act can be used to uphold the rights of people with disabilities to be free from discrimination.
Read MoreIn 2018, Mr Nathan Davidson was sentenced for six years and nine months, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months. Mr Davidson was held in solitary confinement on the ‘hard side’ of the Management Unit for a total of 63 days. Mr Davidson challenged the lawfulness of the rear courtyard under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (Human Rights Act) in the ACT Supreme Court.
Read MoreIn the present case, Thoms pursued a claim of damages against the Commonwealth for unlawful imprisonment and the High Court, dismissing his claim, determined his detention was not unlawful.
Read MoreThis decision is of significance because it recognises that the exile of a citizen is a punitive action that has serious consequences for the individual involved
Read MoreBissonnette is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that life sentences without a possibility of parole constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Read MoreOn 19 July 2021, the New South Wales Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) in favour of the respondent, Ms Yelda and dismissed the appeal by Vitality Works Australia Pty Ltd (Vitality Works).
Read MoreWhere a person’s visa is mandatorily cancelled on character grounds under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act), s 501CA provides a procedure for the Minister to invite the former visa holder to make representations if they consider the cancellation decision should be revoked.
Read MoreOn 6 May 2022, the Philippines Commission on Human Rights (Commission) released its findings from its inquiry into the world’s largest producers of crude oil, natural gas, coal and cement (Carbon Majors). The Commission released a report which established that corporations can be held responsible for the human rights violations that result from climate change.
Read More