By Thomas Hurley -
Key decisions
- Pollentine v Bleijie [2014] HCA 30
- Fitzgerald v The Queen [2014] HCA 28
- Honeysett v The Queen [2014] HCA 29
- Sullivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCAFC 93
- CMA CGM SA v Ship “Chou Shan” [2014] FCAFC 90
- TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Castel Electronics Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 83
- P v Child Support Registrar [2014] FCAFC 98
- Australian Securities Investment Commission v Franklin (Liquidator), in the matter of Walton Constructions Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 85
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Director of Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate[2014] FCAFC 101
- Von Stieglitz v Comcare [2014] FCAFC 97
- Vergara v Ewin [2014] FCAFC 100; Richardson v Oracle Corporation Australia Ltd [2014] FCAFC 82
- Richardson v Oracle Corporation Australia Ltd [2014] FCAFC 82
- Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd v Marmara [2014] FCAFC 84
- Australia Postal Corporation v D’Rozario [2014] FCAFC 89
- Nield v Mathieson (No 2) [2014] FCAFC 88
- Financial Services Council Ltd v Industry Super Australian Pty Limited [2014] FCAFC 92
- Jaffarie v Director General of Security [2014] FCAFC 102
- State of Western Australia v BP (Deceased) [2014] FCAFC 95
- AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 99
- Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport [2014] FCAFC 103
- IOOF Holdings Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCAFC 91
- Kosciuszko Thredbo Pty Ltd v ThredboNet Marketing Pty Limited [2014] FCAFC 87
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Review – evidence – whether AAT bound by the rules of evidence
In Sullivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCAFC 93 (25 July 2014) a Full Court concluded the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was not bound by the rules of evidence. It considered the role the rules in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34 and Browne v Dunn (1894) 6 R 67 played in assessing evidence.
