<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/atom10full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:gd="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" gd:etag="W/&quot;A0QAQH87cCp7ImA9WhRVFks.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467</id><updated>2012-01-16T09:45:41.108+10:30</updated><category term="Health World Ltd v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd" /><category term="HCA Transcript" /><title>The Lamp Post</title><subtitle type="html">High Court of Australia Case Summaries and Comment</subtitle><link rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/" /><link rel="next" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default?start-index=26&amp;max-results=25&amp;redirect=false&amp;v=2" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><generator version="7.00" uri="http://www.blogger.com">Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>103</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/lamppostblog/rss" /><feedburner:info uri="lamppostblog/rss" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;DkQBSXgyfCp7ImA9Wx9aF0s.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-7379849003058220943</id><published>2011-02-28T22:39:00.007+10:30</published><updated>2011-03-11T00:09:18.694+10:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2011-03-11T00:09:18.694+10:30</app:edited><title>Minister for Immigration &amp; Citizenship v SZGUR</title><summary type="html">Minister for Immigration &amp;amp; Citizenship v SZGUR [2011] HCA 1  Outline  This was an appeal by the Minister from a decision of the Federal Court.  The High Court considered whether the provision to the RRT of ‘investigative’ powers under s 427(1)(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’) creates an obligation on the Tribunal to consider exercising those powers, or to consider parties’ requests &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/p1MvJ8_Pjg4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/7379849003058220943/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/minister-for-immigration-citizenship-v.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/7379849003058220943?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/7379849003058220943?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/p1MvJ8_Pjg4/minister-for-immigration-citizenship-v.html" title="Minister for Immigration &amp; Citizenship v SZGUR" /><author><name>Alex James-Martin</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/14180119578089480299</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/minister-for-immigration-citizenship-v.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;CU8CR30_fip7ImA9Wx9VFUs.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-5287125742021009363</id><published>2011-02-01T23:07:00.000+10:30</published><updated>2011-02-01T23:07:46.346+10:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2011-02-01T23:07:46.346+10:30</app:edited><title>The New Year Begins</title><summary type="html">As the new sitting year is set to commence in the High Court we have now stormed past our first year anniversary here at the Lamp Post. Last year was a particularly exciting year in the High Court with many unexpected landmark decisions. Thanks very much to all those who have been reading and a particular thank you to all those who have posted comments or emailed me personally to discuss &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/9r3fHCUnZ54" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/5287125742021009363/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-year-begins.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/5287125742021009363?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/5287125742021009363?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/9r3fHCUnZ54/new-year-begins.html" title="The New Year Begins" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-year-begins.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;CEIMSHY_eip7ImA9Wx9QEU0.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-4276949171029645260</id><published>2010-12-23T21:34:00.001+10:30</published><updated>2010-12-23T21:39:49.842+10:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-12-23T21:39:49.842+10:30</app:edited><title>New HCA Judgments: Rowe, Aktas, SZJSS and TEC Desert</title><summary type="html">Four new High Court Judgments handed down. [[Sorry for the delay in posting but I have been one of those affected by the snow in the UK.]]

Rowe v Electoral Commissioner [2010] HCA 46

The decision in this matter was handed down back in August, but the Court reserved their reasons for decision until now.

The High Court (French CJ and Crennan J each provided separate reasons and Gummow and Bell &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/fLW7BN1D1s0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/4276949171029645260/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-hca-judgments-rowe-aktas-szjss-and.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4276949171029645260?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4276949171029645260?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/fLW7BN1D1s0/new-hca-judgments-rowe-aktas-szjss-and.html" title="New HCA Judgments: Rowe, Aktas, SZJSS and TEC Desert" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-hca-judgments-rowe-aktas-szjss-and.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;D08DRHk-fSp7ImA9Wx9SF0o.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-431068715818687564</id><published>2010-12-08T13:05:00.003+10:30</published><updated>2010-12-08T13:07:55.755+10:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-12-08T13:07:55.755+10:30</app:edited><title>New HCA Judgments: Port of Portland and Hili &amp; Jones</title><summary type="html">Two new judgments handed down in the High Court today. They were:

Port of Portland Pty Ltd v Victoria [2010] HCA 44

The High Court has unanimously allowed this appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The appellant was a private company that purchased the land and operations of a government owned port as part of a privatisation move by the Government &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/CDIZ0htu7I8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/431068715818687564/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-hca-judgments-port-of-portland-and.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/431068715818687564?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/431068715818687564?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/CDIZ0htu7I8/new-hca-judgments-port-of-portland-and.html" title="New HCA Judgments: Port of Portland and Hili &amp; Jones" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-hca-judgments-port-of-portland-and.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;DEADQXczeCp7ImA9Wx9SE0w.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-9140720894436924654</id><published>2010-12-03T05:34:00.003+10:30</published><updated>2010-12-03T05:36:10.980+10:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-12-03T05:36:10.980+10:30</app:edited><title>New HCA Judgments: Aid/Watch and Henschke</title><summary type="html">Two new judgments handed down in the High Court. 

Aid/Watch Incorporated v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] HCA 42

The High Court has allowed this appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

For detail, see Alex's post on the case here. This was a test case concerning whether certain benevolent societies who are involved in political action for law reform can &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/cogXX28mlwg" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/9140720894436924654/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-hca-judgments-aidwatch-and-henschke.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/9140720894436924654?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/9140720894436924654?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/cogXX28mlwg/new-hca-judgments-aidwatch-and-henschke.html" title="New HCA Judgments: Aid/Watch and Henschke" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-hca-judgments-aidwatch-and-henschke.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;C0YFRHY5cSp7ImA9Wx9TEEk.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-770844541689047213</id><published>2010-11-18T11:11:00.004+10:30</published><updated>2010-11-18T11:15:15.829+10:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-11-18T11:15:15.829+10:30</app:edited><title>Nevember Special Leave Rundown... so far</title><summary type="html">The High Court hasn't yet released its official list of cases for which special leave was granted on Friday. But at least some of the transcripts are up on Austlii (thanks for the heads up from Jeremy Gans). So the list (so far) is as follows:

Stoddart v Boulton [2010] FCAFC 89

Leave was granted in an appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court.

This case concerns the Australian Crime &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/McGUp7eGxO8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/770844541689047213/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/nevember-special-leave-rundown-so-far.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/770844541689047213?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/770844541689047213?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/McGUp7eGxO8/nevember-special-leave-rundown-so-far.html" title="Nevember Special Leave Rundown... so far" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/nevember-special-leave-rundown-so-far.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;DE4FSXk4eyp7ImA9Wx9TEEo.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-4775034721416213253</id><published>2010-11-11T13:07:00.009+10:30</published><updated>2010-11-18T21:11:58.733+10:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-11-18T21:11:58.733+10:30</app:edited><title>New HCA Judgments: Totani, Anstis and M69 of 2010</title><summary type="html">Three new judgments handed down today. These three cases are probably among the three biggest cases of the year (well, at least Totani and M61). Given the complexity and importance of each of these cases, I will only be able to state here the general outcome of each case, but we'll have some commentary up soon:

South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39

The High Court (Hayne Heydon J dissenting) &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/bhDaG46uof4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/4775034721416213253/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-hca-judgments-totani-anstis-and-m69.html#comment-form" title="9 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4775034721416213253?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4775034721416213253?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/bhDaG46uof4/new-hca-judgments-totani-anstis-and-m69.html" title="New HCA Judgments: Totani, Anstis and M69 of 2010" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>9</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-hca-judgments-totani-anstis-and-m69.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;Ak8NSH8yeip7ImA9Wx5bGEg.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-251629086760339547</id><published>2010-11-04T18:33:00.010+10:30</published><updated>2010-11-04T18:51:39.192+10:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-11-04T18:51:39.192+10:30</app:edited><title>New HCA Judgments: Selected Seeds v QBEMM, and R v Nguyen</title><summary type="html">&amp;lt;!--[if gte mso 9]&amp;gt;     Normal   0               false   false   false      EN-AU   X-NONE   X-NONE                                                     MicrosoftInternetExplorer4                                                   &amp;lt;![endif]--&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!--[if gte mso 9]&amp;gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/RuFNQYomaUI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/251629086760339547/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-hca-judgments-selected-seeds-v.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/251629086760339547?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/251629086760339547?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/RuFNQYomaUI/new-hca-judgments-selected-seeds-v.html" title="New HCA Judgments: Selected Seeds v QBEMM, and R v Nguyen" /><author><name>Matt R. Lady</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/07127652304819390766</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-hca-judgments-selected-seeds-v.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;CkYAQHg8fyp7ImA9Wx5bEEk.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-8692447253512196801</id><published>2010-10-25T23:50:00.003+10:30</published><updated>2010-10-26T07:25:41.677+10:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-10-26T07:25:41.677+10:30</app:edited><title>October Special Leave Rundown (No 2)</title><summary type="html">Three cases were given special leave to appeal at the blue moon Special Leave applications on Friday:

Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Bowers [2010] WASCA 46
and
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v White [2010] WASCA 47 

Leave was granted in these two appeals which have been heard together in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. These cases concern the breadth&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/VkBTZCyhGYM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/8692447253512196801/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/october-special-leave-rundown-no-2.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/8692447253512196801?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/8692447253512196801?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/VkBTZCyhGYM/october-special-leave-rundown-no-2.html" title="October Special Leave Rundown (No 2)" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/october-special-leave-rundown-no-2.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;CkANRn84cCp7ImA9Wx5bEEw.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-4221225902409086437</id><published>2010-10-25T23:16:00.000+10:30</published><updated>2010-10-25T23:16:37.138+10:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-10-25T23:16:37.138+10:30</app:edited><title>Abetz challenge withdrawn</title><summary type="html">Australia's own private birther challenge was called on in the High Court today, where the Court sat as the Court of Disputed Returns to determine whether Senator Eric Abetz is disqualified from sitting due to his German citizenship.

Perhaps uncharacteristically for a birther challenge, the challenge is not being pursued because incontrovertible evidence of Abetz’s renunciation of citizenship &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/9nuFrdCJQg4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/4221225902409086437/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/abetz-challenge-withdrawn.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4221225902409086437?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4221225902409086437?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/9nuFrdCJQg4/abetz-challenge-withdrawn.html" title="Abetz challenge withdrawn" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/abetz-challenge-withdrawn.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;A04ERno9fyp7ImA9Wx5UFUs.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-4806736090589233675</id><published>2010-10-20T20:48:00.000+10:30</published><updated>2010-10-20T20:48:27.467+10:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-10-20T20:48:27.467+10:30</app:edited><title>New HCA Judgments: WorkCover v Amaca, Pollock and Finch</title><summary type="html">Three new decisions handed down by the High Court today. All were unanimous, they were: 

WorkCover Queensland v Amaca Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 34 

The High Court has unanimously allowed this appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Queensland Supreme Court. 

WorkCover paid compensation to a worker for injury, including pain and suffering, caused by the worker contracting mesothelioma &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/yj01xo9lobs" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/4806736090589233675/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-hca-judgments-workcover-v-amaca.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4806736090589233675?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4806736090589233675?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/yj01xo9lobs/new-hca-judgments-workcover-v-amaca.html" title="New HCA Judgments: WorkCover v Amaca, Pollock and Finch" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-hca-judgments-workcover-v-amaca.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;CUQAQXcyeyp7ImA9Wx5WGU4.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-4499901770872090477</id><published>2010-10-01T21:12:00.000+09:30</published><updated>2010-10-01T21:12:20.993+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-10-01T21:12:20.993+09:30</app:edited><title>October Special Leave Rundown</title><summary type="html">Of the 6 or so cases that applied for special leave to appeal today, not a single one received a grant of leave.

The cases included an appeal against the conviction for sexual offences of William Kamm (better known to some as the Little Pebble, antipope Peter II the Roman of the Order of St Charbel).

Also denied special leave was the decision of Da Ros v Qantas Airways Limited [2010] NSWCA 89 &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/BJVCaNlxtyA" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/4499901770872090477/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/october-special-leave-rundown.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4499901770872090477?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4499901770872090477?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/BJVCaNlxtyA/october-special-leave-rundown.html" title="October Special Leave Rundown" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/october-special-leave-rundown.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;A0QBQX8_eip7ImA9Wx5WGE0.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-8258325000816432359</id><published>2010-09-30T10:45:00.000+09:30</published><updated>2010-09-30T10:45:50.142+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-09-30T10:45:50.142+09:30</app:edited><title>Poniatowska: the special leave fast lane</title><summary type="html">On Monday, the High Court fast tracked a special leave application for an appeal by Malgorzata Poniatowska (transcript here). Malgorzata first made headlines when she won a record breaking sexual harassment payout from Hickinbotham's Real Estate for some seriously derogatory comments made by her employer. Unfortunately for her, the Commonwealth Government must follow Federal Court rulings because&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/PGO-UMxgFRA" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/8258325000816432359/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/poniatowska-special-leave-fast-lane.html#comment-form" title="2 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/8258325000816432359?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/8258325000816432359?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/PGO-UMxgFRA/poniatowska-special-leave-fast-lane.html" title="Poniatowska: the special leave fast lane" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>2</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/poniatowska-special-leave-fast-lane.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;A0MASXg5cSp7ImA9Wx5WF0o.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-3900300121505764668</id><published>2010-09-30T02:25:00.002+09:30</published><updated>2010-09-30T02:27:28.629+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-09-30T02:27:28.629+09:30</app:edited><title>More from Heydon J waxing lyrical</title><summary type="html">I‘ve posted before on Heydon J’s increasing predilection for sexing up his judgments. In the decision handed down yesterday of Travelex Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] HCA 33, the High Court had to decide whether foreign currency was just the paper on which it was written or whether there was something more to it. 

According to Heydon J (at [47]):

The rights supplied were the rights &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/e2wdhDDZQ-8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/3900300121505764668/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-from-heydon-j-waxing-lyrical.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/3900300121505764668?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/3900300121505764668?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/e2wdhDDZQ-8/more-from-heydon-j-waxing-lyrical.html" title="More from Heydon J waxing lyrical" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-from-heydon-j-waxing-lyrical.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;A0cFQHc_fip7ImA9Wx5WF0o.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-5874734978115102457</id><published>2010-09-29T22:15:00.000+09:30</published><updated>2010-09-30T02:20:11.946+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-09-30T02:20:11.946+09:30</app:edited><title>New HCA Judgments: Miller; Kostas &amp; Travelex</title><summary type="html">Three new decisions were handed down today.  Appeal allowed in all of them:

Miller &amp;amp; Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Limited [2010] HCA 31

The High Court has allowed this appeal from the Victorian Court of Appeal. 

The appellant, Miller, is an insurance broker which organised an insurance policy for a company called Consolidated Timber. The broker organised for &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/HcoFHAlEHGM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/5874734978115102457/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-hca-judgments-miller-kostas.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/5874734978115102457?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/5874734978115102457?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/HcoFHAlEHGM/new-hca-judgments-miller-kostas.html" title="New HCA Judgments: Miller; Kostas &amp; Travelex" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-hca-judgments-miller-kostas.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;C0YBQH45fyp7ImA9Wx5WEkg.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-5669401870519588414</id><published>2010-09-23T23:42:00.000+09:30</published><updated>2010-09-23T23:42:31.027+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-09-23T23:42:31.027+09:30</app:edited><title>More Commentary on Dickson</title><summary type="html">I posted yesterday on the High Court decision in Dickson v The Queen [2010] HCA 30. In addition I would recommend taking a look at the interesting discussion at Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes and Don Mathias’s Blog, as well as an interesting comment to my post from Jeremy Gans.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/LO7bV3Wickw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/5669401870519588414/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-commentary-on-dickson.html#comment-form" title="1 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/5669401870519588414?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/5669401870519588414?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/LO7bV3Wickw/more-commentary-on-dickson.html" title="More Commentary on Dickson" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>1</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-commentary-on-dickson.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;DkQBSHY5fCp7ImA9Wx5WEUo.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-4085214882370327038</id><published>2010-09-23T02:22:00.000+09:30</published><updated>2010-09-23T02:22:39.824+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-09-23T02:22:39.824+09:30</app:edited><title>New HCA Judgment: Dickson v The Queen</title><summary type="html">This decision was handed down today:

Dickson v The Queen [2010] HCA 30 

The High Court has unanimously allowed this appeal against a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal. The case concerns s 109 of the Constitution which invalidates State legislation if it is inconsistent with Commonwealth legislation. The appellant was a former Federal Police officer who was convicted of conspiracy to &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/x8NG5Nb0Qrw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/4085214882370327038/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-hca-judgment-dickson-v-queen.html#comment-form" title="1 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4085214882370327038?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4085214882370327038?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/x8NG5Nb0Qrw/new-hca-judgment-dickson-v-queen.html" title="New HCA Judgment: Dickson v The Queen" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>1</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-hca-judgment-dickson-v-queen.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;DE4HRnk_eCp7ImA9Wx5QF0g.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-5666340473940207085</id><published>2010-09-06T16:38:00.000+09:30</published><updated>2010-09-06T16:38:57.740+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-09-06T16:38:57.740+09:30</app:edited><title>September Special Leave Rundown</title><summary type="html">Plenty of special leave grants on Friday, they were:Byrnes v Kendle [2009] SASC 385 (and subsequent decision at (No 2) [2010] SASC 64)Leave was granted in an appeal from the Full Court of the South Australian Supreme Court. The case concerned a written “acknowledgement of trust” by Kendle in favour of Byrnes over half of a residential property which was then leased to Kendle’s son. The Court &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/6HTl58xaIgs" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="related" href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s109.html" title="September Special Leave Rundown" /><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/5666340473940207085/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/september-special-leave-rundown.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/5666340473940207085?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/5666340473940207085?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/6HTl58xaIgs/september-special-leave-rundown.html" title="September Special Leave Rundown" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/september-special-leave-rundown.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;DEAERXk4fSp7ImA9Wx5QFEU.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-204472627365270019</id><published>2010-09-03T13:35:00.000+09:30</published><updated>2010-09-03T13:35:04.735+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-09-03T13:35:04.735+09:30</app:edited><title>New HCA Judgment: Public Trustee v Fortress Credit Corp</title><summary type="html">This decision was handed down on Wednesday:Public Trustee of Queensland v Fortress Credit Corporation (Aus) 11 Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 29The High Court has dismissed this appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Queensland Supreme Court. The case concerns what constitutes “a variation in the terms of a registrable charge” for the purpose of the registration requirements in the Corporations &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/RJBMHCa9w3E" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="related" href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2010/29.html" title="New HCA Judgment: Public Trustee v Fortress Credit Corp" /><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/204472627365270019/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-hca-judgment-public-trustee-v.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/204472627365270019?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/204472627365270019?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/RJBMHCa9w3E/new-hca-judgment-public-trustee-v.html" title="New HCA Judgment: Public Trustee v Fortress Credit Corp" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-hca-judgment-public-trustee-v.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;DEANQ3g6fip7ImA9Wx5QFEU.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-4237942297035455287</id><published>2010-09-01T11:54:00.002+09:30</published><updated>2010-09-03T13:36:32.616+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-09-03T13:36:32.616+09:30</app:edited><title>New HCA Judgment: Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia</title><summary type="html">The High Court handed down a new judgment today. This is the third installation of the ICM Agriculture / Arnold saga regarding s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution:

Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28
The High Court has allowed the appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court. This case relates to the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NSW), which put restrictions on the &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/3J8zZ6JAFoY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/4237942297035455287/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-hca-judgment-spencer-v-commonwealth.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4237942297035455287?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4237942297035455287?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/3J8zZ6JAFoY/new-hca-judgment-spencer-v-commonwealth.html" title="New HCA Judgment: Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-hca-judgment-spencer-v-commonwealth.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;D04HSX48fyp7ImA9Wx5RF0U.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-420363065661119399</id><published>2010-08-26T10:54:00.001+09:30</published><updated>2010-08-26T10:55:38.077+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-08-26T10:55:38.077+09:30</app:edited><title>Settled: Heperu Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees Australia Ltd</title><summary type="html">In the February special leave run down, I posted about a case which was given leave regarding fraud on bank cheques. The High Court was set to hand down their decision in this matter today, but the parties settled the matter yesterday for a reported $3 million. There were some whispers early on that there might be a settlement, but this is pretty last minute.

The case concerned a fraud which had&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/RH5d-CbvQ0o" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/420363065661119399/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/settled-heperu-pty-ltd-v-perpetual.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/420363065661119399?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/420363065661119399?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/RH5d-CbvQ0o/settled-heperu-pty-ltd-v-perpetual.html" title="Settled: Heperu Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees Australia Ltd" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/settled-heperu-pty-ltd-v-perpetual.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;CkAMQ3o4fyp7ImA9Wx5RF00.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-4270777117221080730</id><published>2010-08-25T11:16:00.000+09:30</published><updated>2010-08-25T11:16:22.437+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-08-25T11:16:22.437+09:30</app:edited><title>New HCA Judgment</title><summary type="html">The High Court handed down one new judgment today:Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [2010] HCA 27The High Court allowed an appeal from the Full Court of New South Wales regarding the royalties which are payable upon the mining of copper. The Mining Act 1992 (Cth) provides for different treatment in terms of royalties between “privately owned” and “publically owned” minerals. In &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/6TKdFrVPuOg" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="related" href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2002/268.html" title="New HCA Judgment" /><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/4270777117221080730/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-hca-judgment.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4270777117221080730?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/4270777117221080730?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/6TKdFrVPuOg/new-hca-judgment.html" title="New HCA Judgment" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-hca-judgment.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;CEADR3k4eSp7ImA9Wx5REk0.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-2406080065072315667</id><published>2010-08-19T16:56:00.000+09:30</published><updated>2010-08-19T16:56:16.731+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-08-19T16:56:16.731+09:30</app:edited><title>No Niqāb in the Witness Box</title><summary type="html">For those following the controversy in Western Australia, District Court Judge Deane today ruled that a woman must remove her Niqāb (Burqa) while giving evidence. The woman had previously requested to wear the Niqāb in evidence because she would feel uneasy being seen without it and she was concerned that this may affect her evidence. The case relates to the fraud charges against Anwar Sayed, who&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/YsITr4ZDN9M" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="related" href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/19/2987539.htm?section=justin" title="No Niqāb in the Witness Box" /><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/2406080065072315667/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/no-niqab-in-witness-box.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/2406080065072315667?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/2406080065072315667?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/YsITr4ZDN9M/no-niqab-in-witness-box.html" title="No Niqāb in the Witness Box" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/no-niqab-in-witness-box.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;A0ANRXg7cCp7ImA9Wx5REEU.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-6877655439323744758</id><published>2010-08-18T09:29:00.001+09:30</published><updated>2010-08-18T09:33:14.608+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-08-18T09:33:14.608+09:30</app:edited><title>Update: KPMG v Commonwealth</title><summary type="html">I posted a while ago on this case when it was first before the High Court back in June. It concerns the validity of s 50 of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth). Without having any precise knowledge of the nature of the dispute I gave some preliminary thoughts on the case. The matter was back in Court on Wednesday last ([2010] HCA 210) and was referred to the Full &lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/xD-VqYoR5tg" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/6877655439323744758/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/update-kpmg-v-commonwealth.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/6877655439323744758?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/6877655439323744758?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/xD-VqYoR5tg/update-kpmg-v-commonwealth.html" title="Update: KPMG v Commonwealth" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/update-kpmg-v-commonwealth.html</feedburner:origLink></entry><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;DUMEQ3czcSp7ImA9Wx5REE4.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4143990037169414467.post-1577904750602957213</id><published>2010-08-17T18:52:00.002+09:30</published><updated>2010-08-17T19:00:02.989+09:30</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-08-17T19:00:02.989+09:30</app:edited><title>Electronic Voter Enrolment: Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner</title><summary type="html">Following their victory in the High Court two weeks ago (in Rowe v Electoral Commissioner), which secured the ability of an estimated 100,000 Australians to vote, GetUp! have had another victory. This time the number is not so grand. It’s just one. But it is an important one.

As a part of its policy to foster greater representative democracy, GetUp! created a website called http://&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~4/9QfzyNvQwVI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</summary><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/feeds/1577904750602957213/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/electronic-voter-enrolment-getup-ltd-v.html#comment-form" title="1 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/1577904750602957213?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4143990037169414467/posts/default/1577904750602957213?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lamppostblog/rss/~3/9QfzyNvQwVI/electronic-voter-enrolment-getup-ltd-v.html" title="Electronic Voter Enrolment: Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner" /><author><name>Harley Schumann</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/12873307249958347973</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>1</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://lamppostblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/electronic-voter-enrolment-getup-ltd-v.html</feedburner:origLink></entry></feed>

