High Court ruling in ASF17 v Commonwealth of Australia [2024] HCA 19 On 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. 

National Council for Civil Liberties v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1181In 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.

Smith v Fonterra [2024] NZSC 5The 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.

Mr Gutierrez v MUR Shipping Australia Pty Limited [2023] FCA 399 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. 

Austin Health v Tsikos [2023] VSCA 82On 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.

Murray v UBS Securities LLC, 601 US 22 (2024)This 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”.

ECoCeQ v Minister for the Environment and Water (No 2) [2023] FCA 1208The 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’).

The 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. 

VZW Klimaatzaak v Kingdom of Belgium & Others (30 November 2023)In 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.

Kvelde v State of New South Wales [2023] NSWSC 1560Two 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.

Young v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) [2023] HCA 31In 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).

MB (a pseudonym) v Children’s Court of Victoria & Anor [2023] VSC 666This 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.