this product is unavailable for purchase using a firm account, please log in with a personal account to make this purchase.

Reviews of Judgments

Every Issue

Cite as: (2002) 76(11) LIJ, p.63

High Court judgments

Cite as: (2002) 76(11) LIJ, p.63

BY THOMAS HURLEY

CRIMINAL LAW – CONVICTION – WHETHER MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – TACTICAL DECISION OF DEFENCE COUNSEL.

TKWJ V Q [2002] HCA 46 (10 OCTOBER 2002).

The appellant was charged with aggravated indecent assault against C who was the son of a woman he lived with. A complaint against the appellant had also been made by K who was C’s younger sister but no charges arose out of this. At the trial the appellant’s counsel was told that if the appellant relied on his good character as a defence to the charge relating to C, the Crown would lead evidence in reply of the allegations made by K. The appellant was convicted and his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal failed. The appellant contended a miscarriage of justice had occurred because his counsel had not sought a ruling from the trial judge as to whether the Crown could rely on the complaint by K. The High Court concluded that no miscarriage had occurred: Gleeson CJ; Gaudron J; McHugh J; Gummow J; Hayne J. Appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – COSTS – UNSUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION FOR FEDERAL OFFENCE IN STATE COURT – POWER OF STATE COURT TO MAKE COSTS ORDERS.

SOLOMONS V DISTRICT COURT OF NSW [2002] HCA 47 (10 OCTOBER 2002).

The appellant was by direction found not guilty in the NSW District Court of charges of drug importation contrary to s233B of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). His application for a certificate under s2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) was refused. An application by the appellant for judicial review of this order was refused by the NSW Court of Appeal. His further appeal to the High Court was also dismissed: Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan JJ; McHugh J; Kirby J. The High Court concluded that the provisions of the Costs Act were not made applicable by either s68(2) or 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – INFERENCES – WHEN JURY MAY RELY ON INFERENCE ARISING FROM FAILURE OF ACCUSED TO CALL WITNESSES – LONGMAN DIRECTION.

DYERS V Q [2002] HCA 45 (9 OCTOBER 2002).

The appellant was indicted in 1999 of having indecently assaulted a girl in 1988. The diary of the appellant was produced and referred to meetings the appellant had had with persons on the day in question. In an unsworn statement the appellant acknowledged seeing the complainant and her mother on the day in question. Neither the appellant nor the prosecution called the persons with whom the appellant was said to have had meetings. The trial judge directed the jury that, absent an explanation why the accused had not called the other persons to give evidence, the jury could infer the evidence of these persons would not have assisted the appellant. The jury were also directed they could not speculate on what the witnesses might have said had they been called. The appellant’s appeal to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal was dismissed. His appeal to the High Court was allowed by majority: Gaudron with Hayne JJ; Kirby J; Callinan J; contra McHugh J. Consideration of when a Jones v Dunkel direction could be given in a criminal trial. Consideration of the Longman direction and when an appeal court allowing an appeal may order that there be no re-trial due to the passage of time and other circumstances. Appeal allowed.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – POLLUTION – DISCHARGE OF OIL FROM SHIP – WHETHER “WEAR AND TEAR” OF SHIP “DAMAGE”.

MORRISON V PEACOCK [2002] HCA 44 (9 OCTOBER 2002).

All members of the High Court (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne JJ) jointly concluded that “wear and tear” to the equipment of a ship could constitute “damage” to the equipment of it. The Court held that the term “damage” when used in s8 of the Marine Pollution Act 1987 (NSW) referred to a sudden change in the condition of a ship or its equipment that was the instantaneous consequence of an event.

STAMP DUTY – TRANSFER OF FEE SIMPLE ESTATE – VALUATION – RELEVANCE OF CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS LIMITING USE OF LAND.

COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE V PIONEER CONCRETE (VIC) PTY LTD [2002] HCA 43 (4 OCTOBER 2002).

By s63(3)(b)(i)(B), the Stamps Act 1958 (Vic) provided that the value for the Act of land subject to a conveyance was the value for which the land might reasonably have been sold if it had been sold “free from encumbrances in the open market on the date of the sale”. The respondent purchased a quarry in Victoria for $1.7m. The contract of sale reserved to the vendor rights to use part of the quarry as a tip for up to 12 years. The Commissioner valued the land at $7.7m. The primary judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria concluded the Commissioner had correctly valued the land without reference to the vendor’s reservations in the contract of sale. This conclusion was reversed by the Court of Appeal (1999) 41 ATR 496. The Commissioner’s appeal to the High Court was allowed: Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne JJ jointly; sim Callinan J. The Court concluded that while the contractual terms on which a person became a registered proprietor of land could be relevant to understanding the legal effect of the instrument, it was not relevant in considering the net effect of the transaction pursuant to which the instrument was executed. [43] Appeal allowed.

TRADE PRACTICES – MISLEADING CONDUCT – CAUSATION – FAILURE OF MISLED PARTY TO MAKE REASONABLE INQUIRIES – WHETHER DAMAGES UNDER TRADE PRACTICES ACT SHOULD BE REDUCED.

I & L SECURITIES PTY LTD V HTW VALUERS (BRISBANE) PTY LTD [2002] HCA 41 (2 OCTOBER 2002).

In 1995 the respondent valued land of a borrower as having a value of $1.576m. The appellant lent the borrower $950,000. On default by the borrower, the appellant as mortgagee sold the land in 1997 for $592,000. The appellant sued the respondent for breach of negligence, contract and contravention of the Trade Practices Act. The respondent admitted negligence and breach of the Act. The primary judge found the appellant’s loss was caused partly by the negligence or misleading conduct of the respondent and partly by failure of the appellant to make prudent inquiries of the borrower. The primary judge reduced the damages awarded to the appellant by one-third. The appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal of Queensland was allowed. This Court relied on the reference in s87(1) of the Trade Practices Act to a court making such orders “as it thinks appropriate” to justify a reduction in damages. The appeal by the appellant to the High Court was allowed by majority. Gleeson CJ: s82 of the Trade Practices Act provided a right to recover and the right arose where the contravention was a cause and did not require it to be the sole cause [33]; Gaudron, Gummow, Hayne JJ concluded a court was not permitted to give partial compensation for contravention of the Trade Practices Act [61] as did McHugh J [118]; Callinan J agreed with the result but thought it produced a result which was “unfair” [211]; Kirby J dissented, concluding a court was entitled to consider whether all the loss was caused “by” the contravention [183]. Appeal allowed.

THOMAS HURLEY is a member of the Victorian Bar. The numbers in square brackets in the text refer to the paragraph numbers in the judgment. The full version of these judgments can be found on the AustLII website http://www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html.

Federal Court judgments

Cite as: (2002) 76(11) LIJ, p.64

BY THOMAS HURLEY

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF MAGISTRATE OF NT – WHETHER APPOINTMENT INVALID.

NORTH AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL LEGAL AID SERVICE INC V BRADLEY [2002] FCAFC 297 (27 SEPTEMBER 2002).

A Full Court concluded the appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the NT was not invalid. It concluded that unique arrangements for his remuneration did not result in an invalid appointment.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – APPROVED PHARMACIST – JOINT APPROVAL.

NGUYEN V MINISTER FOR HEALTH & AGEING [2002] FCA 1241 (10 OCTOBER 2002).

Weinberg J considered whether the Minister for Health could revoke an approval as an “approved pharmacist” under s133(2)(b) of the National Health Act 1953 (Cth) where one of two persons jointly approved was convicted of an offence.

BANKRUPTCY – WHETHER PARKING FINES PROVABLE DEBTS IN THE BANKRUPTCY.

MANSFIELD V STATE OF VICTORIA [2002] FCA 1175 (27 SEPTEMBER 2002).

Merkel J concluded that unpaid penalties for parking fines incurred by a person prior to bankruptcy were provable debts in the bankruptcy.

CORPORATIONS – TAKEOVER – TAKEOVER BODY BY PROPERTY TRUST FOR GROUP OF PROPERTY TRUSTS.

SEABROOK, IN THE MATTER OF THE TAKEOVERS PANEL & THE CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 (CTH) [2002] FCA 1219 (2 OCTOBER 2002).

Conti J considered questions referred to the Federal Court under s659A of the Corporations Act 2001 concerning documentation in takeover bids for listed property trusts.

CROWN IMMUNITY – WHEN CROWN CARRIES ON A BUSINESS.

NT POWER GENERATION V POWER & WATER AUTHORITY [2002] FCAFC 302 (2 OCTOBER 2002).

A Full Court considered when the Crown carried on business so that it was liable for contravening the Trade Practices Act.

ELECTIONS – REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

MULHOLLAND V AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION [2002] FCA 1255 (11 OCTOBER 2002).

Marshall J considered challenges to the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) regulating the registration of political parties.

INCOME TAX – ELIGIBLE TERMINATION PAYMENT.

LE GRAND V COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION [2002] FCA 1258 (15 OCTOBER 2002).

Goldberg J considered whether the payment to a former employee was an eligible termination payment for the purposes of the Termination Payments Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997 (Cth) where the payment was in part to compromise a claim of wrongful termination and misleading and deceptive conduct.

INCOME TAX – WHETHER LUMP SUM PAID IN SETTLEMENT OF INCOME REPLACEMENT CLAIM IS INCOME.

SOMMER V COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION [2002] FCA 1205 (27 SEPTEMBER 2002).

Merkel J considered whether a lump sum paid to a taxpayer in settlement of claims under an income replacement policy was assessable as income or a sum paid in settlement of the claim for income replacement.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – COSTS.

JOHNSTON V CAMERON [2002] FCAFC 301 (1 OCTOBER 2002).

A Full Court considered when proceedings arose under the Workplace Relations Act. It considered whether newspapers which intervened before the Federal Court to challenge a suppression order in a proceeding under the Workplace Relations Act were involved in a proceeding. Applications for costs dismissed.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – POWER OF NATIONAL COUNCIL OF UNION TO APPOINT AN ADMINISTRATOR OF STATE BRANCH WHERE STATE SECRETARY SUSPENDED.

DARGAVEL V CAMERON [2002] FCA 1234 (4 OCTOBER 2002).

Goldberg J considered whether the rules of the AFMEPKI Union permitted the national council to appoint an administrator of a state branch where the state secretary was suspended.

MIGRATION – DAMAGES FOR INJURIES IN DETENTION.

LI V C OF A [2002] FCA 1251 (10 OCTOBER 2002).

Sackville J struck out an application by an unlawful non-citizen injured while in detention for injuries alleged to have been caused by breach of implied constitutional principles of equality before the law.

MIGRATION – POWER OF COURT TO ORDER RELEASE.

VHAF V MIMIA [2002] FCA 1234 (8 OCTOBER 2002).

Gray J ordered the release of the applicant from migration detention where it was suggested that he had in fact been granted a visa but was never told of this.

MIGRATION – SPECIAL NEED RELATIVE – YOUNG CHILD.

WU V MIMIA [2002] FCA 1242 (10 OCTOBER 2002).

Sackville J considered that the fact that the nominator was a very young child was insufficient on its own to constitute a “serious circumstance” warranting the grant of a “special need relative visa”.

MIGRATION – TRIBUNALS – DECISION OF REGISTRAR THAT MRT NOT CONSIDER INVALID APPLICATION.

LEE V MIMIA [2002] FCAFC 305 (4 OCTOBER 2002).

A Full Court dismissed an appeal against a decision of a primary judge which upheld a decision of a deputy registrar of the MRT to the effect that an application to it was invalid.

MIGRATION – VISAS – VALID APPLICATION.

NACN OF 2001 V MIMIA [2002] FCAFC 299 (26 SEPTEMBER 2002).

A Full Court considered whether an application for a visa was invalid because of non-compliance with s48 of the Migration Act.

TRADE PRACTICES – MISLEADING CONDUCT – REPRESENTATION THAT BUSINESS LAWFUL – WILL WRITING.

ACCC V MURRAY [2002] FCA 1252 (11 OCTOBER 2002).

Heerey J considered charges brought by the ACCC that the respondent had breached s59(2) of the Trade Practices Act by purporting a business of “will writing”, which was an activity that could only be conducted by legal practitioners.

THOMAS HURLEY is a member of the Victorian Bar. The full version of these judgments can be found on the AustLII website http://www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html.

Supreme Court judgments

Cite as: (2002) 76(11) LIJ, p.65

BY GREG REINHARDT

WHETHER APPEAL LIES FROM JUDGE’S DETERMINATION THAT NO “MANIFEST ERROR OF LAW ON THE FACE OF THE AWARD” WITHIN MEANING OF S38(5)(B) COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT 1984 (VIC).

ENERGY BRIX AUSTRALIA CORPORATION PTY LTD V NATIONAL LOGISTICS COORDINATORS (MORWELL) PTY LTD [2002] VSCA 113 (UNREPORTED, 8 AUGUST 2002, NO 5584/ 2001, WINNEKE P, ORMISTON, PHILLIPS, BUCHANAN AND VINCENT JJA).

The appellant appealed against an order of a judge of the Court and also sought leave to appeal against that order. The judge had refused the appellant leave to appeal under s38(4) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (Vic) (the Act) against an award of an arbitrator. The judge had held that there was no “manifest error of law on the face of the award” within the meaning of s38(5)(b) of the Act.

The error said to be manifest on the face of the award was “the conclusion of the arbitrator that, where, as he found, there are two ‘inconsistent’ agreements signed by the parties, one a deed and the other a later signed agreement for good consideration, then ‘at law’ the contract under seal ‘has precedence’ over the signed ‘informal agreement’, so as . . . to entitle the respondents to rely on the inconsistent terms of the earlier deed”. [4] The appellant alleged that such a conclusion was contrary to authority found in cases such as Berry v Berry [1929] 2 KB 316 and Creamoata Ltd v The Rice Equalisation Board Ltd (1953) 89 CLR 286 at pp306 and 326.

The principal decision was given by Ormiston JA.

Did the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction?

It was argued for the respondent that, as earlier provisions of s38 permitting an appeal to the Full Court had been repealed, and as s38(1), when read with the other provisions of s38, appeared to bar an appeal except in the limited way provided for in the section, an appeal to the Court of Appeal did not lie as of right or by leave. However, whether this was so or not, the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of a decision of the Trial Division of the Court given by s17(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) was not affected by s38 of the Commercial Arbitration Act. The Court of Appeal was anxious, however, to emphasise the nature of the appeal:

“It is necessary to emphasise that an appeal to the Court of Appeal is quite different in nature from that which is conferred on Trial Division judges to review awards. There can be no suggestion, nor should any inference be drawn, that the limits imposed by s38 itself may or will be bypassed because this Court can review the decision of a trial judge. What this Court of Appeal is called upon to do on an appeal in a case such as the present is to determine merely whether the judge has correctly applied the criteria laid down in the statute, in this case in s38. This Court cannot re-exercise the judge’s powers or discretions unless and until it is satisfied that the judge erred in the application of the section, and then only subject to its very obvious restrictions which would confine review of an award (except by consent) either to manifest errors or to errors the determination of which would add substantially to the certainty of commercial law, as provided in sub-s(5)(b)(ii).” [12]

There was nothing in s38 which would constitute an express provision precluding an appeal within s17(2) of the Supreme Court Act. The Court drew comfort from what the High Court had said in Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Victoria) (2001) 75 ALJR 1342 in relation to the amplitude of the appeal powers contained in s17(2). The Court should be reluctant to find any implication from s38 that an appeal did not lie. The decision of the Western Australian Full Court in Aintree Holdings Pty Ltd v Corderoy (1996) 16 WAR 416, where it had been held that no appeal lay under sections such as s38, was contrary to the decision of the South Australian Full Court in Minister for Industrial Affairs v Civil Tech Pty Ltd (1997) 69 SASR 348. Had it not been for the decision of the High Court in the Roy Morgan case (above), the two competing decisions might have required further analysis. However, the High Court’s decision resolved the matter. In any event, the South Australian Full Court’s decision was to be preferred.

It was not necessary to resolve the question whether there was an appeal as of right or whether leave to appeal was required. This was a case where there was sufficient doubt as to the judge’s decision and injustice would result if leave to appeal were not given.

Whether there was manifest error on the face of the record.

The arbitrator had given precedence to a contract under seal over a subsequent signed, informal contract. Whatever the position may have been at common law prior to the Judicature Act, the present law was as stated in Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, namely:

“Although at common law a contract under seal could not be released or discharged except by another contract under seal, the equitable rule that a release, though not under seal, if given for consideration, was enforced by injunction is now of general application and allows a contract under seal to be discharged (or varied) by simple contract.” [33]

It followed that the appellant had demonstrated manifest error.

Should a judge give reasons for refusing leave under s38 Commercial Arbitration Act?

Traditionally, courts have taken the view that reasons need not be given: Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB [1985] AC 191; Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Kilpatrick Green Pty Ltd [1992] 2 VR 505. The reason for this was that “manifest” error admits of little argument. [39] However, in light of the High Court’s decision in the Roy Morgan case (above), at least simple reasons for decision ought to have been given and particularly so in view of the contention of the respondents that the arbitrator’s decision was really based on the uncertainty of the later agreement.

In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the Court should substitute for the order of the judge an order that the appellant have leave to appeal against the award of the arbitrator. The Court should not, however, hear the appeal from the arbitrator and make final orders resolving the proceeding.

Validity of notices to produce under RSC r35.08 where no competent statement of claim in existence.

DRESNA PTY LTD AND ORS V MISU NOMINEES PTY LTD AND ORS [2002] VSC 408 (UNREPORTED, 19 SEPTEMBER 2002, NO 2090/2001, HABERSBERGER J).

The proceeding concerned the sale of a supermarket business operated in Mentone by Franklins Management Services Pty Ltd and Franklins Ltd (Franklins) which was the subject of a business sale agreement with the plaintiffs. The supermarket was conducted on premises leased by the defendants to Franklins. The defendants had refused their consent to an assignment of the lease to the plaintiffs. There were allegations that negotiations had taken place with Coles Myer Ltd to sell the business to that company. Franklins, which had been plaintiffs in the proceeding, were added as defendants to the proceeding.

Habersberger J had previously made several interlocutory orders (on 20 December 2001) including orders restraining Franklins from selling the business or forfeiting the lease.

Notices to produce were served by the plaintiffs on Franklins and the defendants under RSC r35.08.

The defendants contended that notices to produce should not be used to discover whether the plaintiffs had any case at all. Reference was made to the decision of the Full Federal Court in Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd (2001) 105 FCR 136, 143-4. Further, it was said that the procedure could only be used in relation to any application in or at the trial of the proceeding. Here there was no application or trial. Third, it was argued that until there was a competent statement of claim (the plaintiffs had not served a further amended statement of claim as required by an earlier order), it was not possible to determine relevance in relation to any of the documents sought in the notices to produce and therefore the exercise was both fishing and vexatious.

It was noted that the procedure under RSC O.32, which allowed pre-proceeding discovery, contained safeguards designed to prevent fishing. RSC r35.08 ought not to be allowed to circumvent procedures such as those prescribed by O.32.

Counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in O’Callaghan v Generation Victoria (unreported, 14 November 1996) as supporting a flexible approach to the use of notices to produce. But in that case there was an application to the Court, namely, an application to re-open and amend. Counsel also relied on the decision of Beach J in Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Malcolm [2001] VSC 308 where the notice to produce was given in relation to an application for security for costs. Beach J said at [28]-[29]:

“ . . . [I]n my opinion, the court has inherent jurisdiction to require a party to litigation to produce any document in his possession relevant to the litigation, including any application in the litigation, prior to the trial of the litigation or the hearing of any application in the litigation. Whilst the Rules of Court are designed to facilitate the disposal of litigation, they are not to be interpreted rigidly.”

Habersberger J noted that in the Equuscorp case the issues were defined by correspondence between the parties. Moreover, the documents sought were in the possession of an opposite party in which the parties had a common interest at common law and they were “relevant to the litigation”. [40]

Here, having regard to the fact that the plaintiffs had yet to file their further amended statement of claim, it was not possible to determine whether the documents sought in the notices to produce were relevant.

The notices to produce were set aside.

Whether offer of compromise by plaintiff valid.

ENERKA APEX BELTING PTY LTD V VICKERS SYSTEMS PTY LTD (NO 2) [2002] VSC 409 (UNREPORTED, 20 SEPTEMBER 2002, NO 2041/ 2001, HABERSBERGER J).

On 30 August 2002, Habersberger J had given judgment for the plaintiff for $308,831.77.

On 14 September 2001, the plaintiff had served an offer of compromise on the defendant in the following terms:

“In accordance with Part 2 of O.26 of the Supreme Court Rules the plaintiff offers to compromise the plaintiff’s claim for the sum of $300,000 plus costs.”

The plaintiff submitted that it was entitled to its costs on a party and party basis until the date of the offer of compromise and thereafter on a solicitor and client basis as it had obtained a judgment against the defendant more favourable than the offer of compromise.

Counsel for the defendant submitted that the offer of compromise rules should not apply as the offer of compromise was on a plus costs basis whereas the rules themselves provide for costs. He relied on the decision of Giles J in Associated Confectionery (Aust) Pty Ltd v Mineral and Chemical Traders Pty Ltd (1991) 25 NSWLR 349. In Habersberger J’s view, while an offer of compromise should not be expressed in a plus costs form, this did not render the offer invalid.

The defendant submitted that the offer was not a genuine offer of compromise as liability was really not in issue. Its offer represented but a 6 per cent reduction in the sum claimed. His Honour said:

“In my opinion, there were serious questions in this proceeding in respect of liability. It was by no means clear that the plaintiff would succeed in its claim. In the circumstances, it is my opinion that a six per cent reduction in the claim was not an offer ‘of a genuine compromise’. Although the sum of $19,243.21 could not be said to be ‘trivial or contemptuous’, and although this decision is not to be concluded ‘by applying a fixed mathematical formula’, I cannot treat the six per cent reduction as a realistic assessment of the chances of success in the proceeding. In my view, the offer must therefore have been made more in the hope of obtaining an advantage on costs rather than for the purpose of genuinely compromising the dispute. It seems to me that, from the defendant’s point of view, paying $300,000 plus costs to settle the claim would have been seen not as a compromise but as capitulation.” [14]

It followed that his Honour was not satisfied (the onus was on the plaintiff in this respect) that the offer was a genuine offer of compromise. Costs for the whole of the proceeding were ordered on a party and party basis.

PROFESSOR GREG REINHARDT is executive director of the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration and a member of the Faculty of Law at the University of Melbourne. The numbers in square brackets in the text refer to the paragraph numbers in the judgment. The full version of these judgments can be found on the AustLII website http://www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html.

Legislation Update

Cite as: (2002) 76(11) LIJ, p.67

New Victorian Assents (as at 21/10/2002)

2002 No. 42 Agricultural Industry Development (Further Amendment) Act
2002 No. 43 Juries (Amendment) Act

New Victorian Spring Sessional Bills (as at 21/10/2002)

Child Employment Bill
Country Fire Authority (Volunteer Protection and Community Safety) Bill
Courts Legislation (Judicial Pensions) Bill
Crimes (Stalking and Family Violence) Bill
Dandenong Development Board Bill
Education and Training Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill
Estate Agents and Sale of Lands Acts (Amendment) Bill
Gas Industry (Residual Provisions) (Amendment) Bill
Health Legislation (Amendment) Bill
Highway Authority Protection Bill
Limitation of Action (Amendment) Bill
Major Events (Crowd Management) Bill
Melbourne Cricket Ground (Amendment) Bill
Outworkers (Improved Protection) Bill
Pay-roll Tax (Maternity and Adoption Leave Exemption) Bill
Planning and Environment (Metropolitan Green Wedge Protection) Bill
Port Services (Amendment) Bill
Retail Leases Bill
Transport (Highway Rule) Bill
Transport (Taxi Driver Standard and Ombudsman) Bill
Victims of Crime Assistance (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

New Victorian Regulations (as at 21/10/2002)

2002/82 Children’s Services (Fees) Regulations
2002/83 Catchment and Land Protection Regulations
2002/84 Tobacco (Grands Prix Events) Regulations
2002/85 Pharmacists (Fees) Regulations
2002/86 Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances (Fees) Regulations
2002/87 Racing (Bookmakers) Regulations
2002/88 Road Safety (General) (Infringements) Regulations
2002/89 Road Safety (Drivers) (Amendment) Regulations
2002/90 Road Safety (General) (Speed Measuring Devices) Regulations
2002/91 Supreme Court (Chapter I Amendment No. 21) Rules
2002/92 Second-Hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers (Exemption) Regulations
2002/93 Subordinate Legislation (Zoological Parks and Gardens (Administration) Regulations 1992 – Extension of Operation) Regulations
2002/94 By-law No. 294: Waterways (Revocation)
2002/95 Fair Trading (Prescribed Safety Standard for Baby Walkers) Regulations

New Commonwealth Assents (as at 21/10/2002)

ACIS Administration Amendment Act 2002 No. 83
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Amendment Act 2002 No. 75
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act (No. 1) 2002 No. 81
Customs Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2002 No. 82
Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Act 2002 No. 84
Family Law Amendment (Child Protection Convention) Act 2002 No. 69
Health Insurance Commission Amendment Act 2002 No. 71
Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Industry Measures) Act 2002 No. 76
Higher Education Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2002 No. 78
Import Processing Charges (Amendment and Repeal) Act 2002 No. 79
Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2002 No. 70
Marriage Amendment Act 2002 No. 77
New Business Tax System (Consolidation) Act (No. 1) 2002 No. 68
Plant Health Australia (Plant Industries) Funding Act 2002 No. 80
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 No. 85
Proceeds of Crime (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2002 No. 86
Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2002 Budget Measures) Act 2002 No. 72
Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2002 No. 73
Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2002 No. 74

New Commonwealth Bills (as at 21/10/2002)

Australian Crime Commission Establishment Bill
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1)
Corporations Amendment (Improving Corporate Governance) Bill
Corporations Amendment (Improving Corporate Governance) Bill
Corporations Amendment (Repayment of Directors’ Bonuses) Bill
Excise Laws Amendment Bill (No. 1)
Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2)
Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Initiatives and Other Measures) Bill
Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill
Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3)
Insurance and Aviation Liability Legislation Amendment Bill
Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Advice Industry) Bill
National Gallery Amendment Bill
New Business Tax System (Consolidation and Other Measures) Bill (No. 1)
New Business Tax System (Franking Deficit Tax) Amendment Bill
Telecommunications Competition Bill
Trade Practices Amendment (Credit Card Reform) Bill
Trade Practices Amendment (Credit Card Reform) Bill
Trade Practices Amendment (Public Liability Insurance) Bill
Trade Practices Amendment (Public Liability Insurance) Bill
Trade Practices Amendment (Small Business Protection) Bill
Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 1)

This summary is prepared by the information editors of ANSTAT to help practitioners keep informed of recent changes in legislation. For further information call 9278 1133.

Comments




Leave message



 
 Security code
 
LIV Social
Footer