The High Court on 11 September 2024 overturned a decision made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria regarding issues of criminal procedure. The issue of criminal procedure concerned a meeting between the complainant, the judge, and counsel for both the prosecution and the accused (the accused being the respondent to this appeal) on the day before the judge presided over a special hearing to take the evidence of the complainant.

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.

Faruqi v Hanson [2024] FCA 1264 In 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). 

Boyle v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2024] SASCA 73 In 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). 

Munkara v  Santos Na Barossa Pty Ltd (No 4) [2024] FCA 414The 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.   

Panazzolo v Don’s Mechanical and Diesel Service Pty Ltd [2023] FEDCFAMC2G 665Mark 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.  

Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960On 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. 

Cotterill v Romanes [2023] VSCA 7 On 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. 

DPP v Alexander (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 161Justice 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. 

Berih v State of Victoria (No 2) [2024] VSC 230The 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.

BZN v Chief Executive, the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs [2023] QSC 266On 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.

Athwal v State of Queensland [2023] QCA 156 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’).