Special leave and lower court information obtained from transcript
Appeal granted at SL hearing
Argument occurred prior to September 1994--transcript not available online
Outcome: application for SL stood over generally. Coded as Other.
Multiple parties listed under both sinlge A and single R, coded as single A/R
Heard with 1995051, decided in separate judgments
Heard with 1995050, decided in separate judgments
A and Rs include multiple parties; consider disaggregating bc companies and individuals listed together
appeal dismissed but cross appeal by respondent was allowed and matter remitted
appeal dismissed but cross appeal by respondent was allowed and matter remitted
order date 23 August 1995
order date 23 August 1995
order date 23 August 1995
A & R includes multiple parties, did not disaggregate as R's listed as 1st and 2nd Rs
Two sets of plurality opinions: Brennan, Deane and Dawson, and Toohey, McHugh and Gummow
Although this matter was formally filed in original jurisdiction, there is a long procedural history and the incapacity to file for leave from certain statutory provisions was the reason OJ was utilised. Coded the lower court history in light of this, even though the standard rule is to exclude where case filed in OJ.
Although this matter was formally filed in original jurisdiction, there is a long procedural history and the incapacity to file for leave from certain statutory provisions was the reason OJ was utilised. Coded the lower court history in light of this, even though the standard rule is to exclude where case filed in OJ.
A & R includes multiple parties, did not disaggregate
Date of order 7 Feburary 1996
SL treated as appeal and remitted
Multiple parties listed under first and second R's, coded as per transcript and did not disaggregate
Two sets of plurarity opinions: Dawson and McHugh, and Gaudron and Gummow
Multiple parties listed under R's, coded as per transcript and did not disaggregate
Two sets of plurarity opinions: Toohey and Gaudron, and McHugh and Gummow
Heard with 1996001
Not entirely sure where 'nominal defendant' fits in Parties coding scheme
SL panel denied SL but Court issued judgment that appeared in CLR and has a medium neutral citation. Treat it as a panel decision and code accordingly
SL panel denied SL but Court issued judgment that appeared in CLR and has a medium neutral citation. Treat it as a panel decision and code accordingly
Two R's under one R label. Coded as one R - R is a liquidator
Multiple parties under P/A and D/R, coded as one P and one D
Two sets of plurarity opinions: Dawson and Toohey, and Gaudron and McHugh
Court: compensation court of NSW
Coded removal hearing
Respondents are both publishers in a defamation action
Sl and appeal heard at same time. 4 justice SL panel convened, coded as referred directly to full court without special leave preliminary hearing
Date of order December 2 1996
appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed, coded caseDisposition as Other
Aggregated appellants bc R's disaggregated in transcript
Two plaintiffs listed together, coded as one P
Date of order 14 March 1997
Date of order 14 March 1997
Aggregated appellants bc R's disaggregated in transcript
Two appellants and two R's listed together, coded as one A and one R
Note: case was heard with Levy but separate decisions issued. Will mean that time of argument is duplicated
AdminReview: Equal Opportunity Tribunal of WA
R states "others" but doesn't disaggregate. Coded as single R
R states "others" but doesn't disaggregate. Coded as single R
P comprises two individuals, coded as one P/A
note - act of parliament construed narrowly to avoid being unconstitutional
note - act of parliament construed narrowly to avoid being unconstitutional
Aggregated appellants bc R's disaggregated in transcript
date of order 14 August 1997
Two individuals as R, coded as 1
date of order 12 August 1997
Note: special leave was heard under a psuedonym or initials - if time, can try and track down
Order made 25 June 1997
Note: special leave was heard under the actual name - if time, can tru and track down
date of order 2 December 1997
Disagreggated appellants bc a mix of individuals and corporate entity
Disaggregated appellants because were a mix of corporations and individuals
casedisposition is coded as 15- other because the HCA allowed the appeal by the appellant and varied orders below (2) but also allowed a cross appeal by the respondent and remitted some issues back to courts below (4)
Cannot locate transcript
Unable to locate transcript. Judgment says hearing 5 March 1998
Transcript not on Austlii. Judgment says hearing on 6 March 1998. Date of order 1 April 1998
date of order 18 June 1998
respondents 4 are the paternal grandparents
issue was pertaining to military law and procedure - coded as federal administrative law - procedural fairness 20202
date of order 27 May 1998
caseorigin: Juvenile Court of the Northern Territory
lowercourt disposition: allowed both the appeal and the cross appeal
date of order 9 October 1998
date of order 10 December 1997
Callinan J's position was more pro-taxpayer than the joint judgment.
The matter came before the Full Court of the Family Court as a specific question for consideration, rather than an appeal.
The matter came before the Full Court of the Federal Court as a specific question for consideration, rather than an appeal.
Appellants comprise 85 individulas.
Respondents listed as 3 individuals under one "Respondents" but parties referred to as first, second etc in transcript. Disaggregated and coded as 3 respondents
Appellants referred to collectively under "Appellants" but are two individuals and one company. Coded as 3 appellants.
This is coded criminal defendant. The appeal relates to a sentence for contempt of court. 

lcDecisionDirection is coded unspecifiable because on the one hand, the decision is not pro-defendant (as he was found guilty of contempt) and therefore conservative, but on the other, either expressly or impliedly, the Court Of Appeal took a pro-judicial power approach in answering whether the District Court had the power to issue mareva injunctions.
This is coded as 'conservative' as it limits federal power (to hear cases involving State jurisdiction/consent to vesting of State jurisdiction in federal courts).

While the subject matter of this challenge involved bankruptcy proceedings, given the constitutional significance of this case, the primary issue is coded as a constitutional issue.
McHugh J held that Mr Gould as well as Mr Amann should be able granted a writ of prohibition. This went further than Gleeson CJ, Gaudron J, and Gummow and Hayne JJ.
Callinan J held that res judicata should not apply to either Mr Brown nor Mr Amann, and so would have extended time to Mr Gould as well as a writ of prohibition. He went furthest in terms of orders in favour of Mr Amann and Mr Gould.
Kirby J dismissed the appeal in its entirety. His decision is coded 'liberal' because it is in favour of greater federal judicial power. The effect of it is that the Federal Court could order the winding up of a company/examinations relating to winding up. Query whether this constitutes a 'liberal' position.
This decision is coded 'conservative' because the effect is to restrict the power of a tribunal to review superannuation decisions (because such power is held to be judicial in nature)
Superannuation complaints tribunal
This decision is coded '2' (act of Parliament declared unconstitutional pursuant to Cth Constitution) as it is the closest to a declaration that Ms Hill was not duly elected by operation of s 44(i) of the Constitution.
These dissents are coded 'conservative' as they limit the exercise of judicial oversight and accountability over elections
These dissents are coded 'conservative' as they limit the exercise of judicial oversight and accountability over elections
These dissents are coded 'conservative' as they limit the exercise of judicial oversight and accountability over elections
date of order 23 June 1999
date of order 22 June 1999
McHugh J's findings are on narrower grounds than the rest of the majority
The disposition is coded as 'other' because the Court adjourned further hearing of an appeal at a date to be fixed'.
The disposition is coded as 'other' because the Court adjourned further hearing of an appeal at a date to be fixed'.
The disposition is coded as 'other' because the Court adjourned further hearing of an appeal at a date to be fixed'.
This decision has been coded 'liberal' on the basis that the awarding of costs on a successful appeal can improve access to justice.
Date of order 18 November 1999
date of order 18 November 1999
date of order 7 March 2000
date of order 25 May 2000
date of order 21 June 2000
Appellant is member of a board of a sporting association
Appellant is member of a board of a sporting association
Two sets of plurality opinions: Gleeson, Gaudron and Callinan, and McHugh, Gummow and Hayne
two sets of plularilty opinions: Gleenson and Hayne, and Gaudron and Gummow. Date of order 7 September 2000
date of order 30 August 2000
date of order 30 August 2000
date of order 30 August 2000
date of order 30 August 2000
date of order 30 August 2000.
date of order 30 August 2000.
lowercourt is the Compensation Court of NSW
McHugh wrote a formal concurring dissent
preliminary special leave hearing was adjourned until after a different case had been decided. After that case's decision, there was another special leave hearing, where SL was granted.
preliminary special leave hearing was adjourned until after a different case had been decided. After that case's decision, there was another special leave hearing, where SL was granted.
Applicants are accountants allegedly in breach of fiduciary duties and respondents other than the first respondent are directors allegedly in breach
caseOriginSepcific - Queensland Land Court
date of order 21 June 2001
date of order 21 June 2001
date of order 7 December 2000
respondent 3 is a hospital
McHugh also ordered for this claim to be dismissed but only as a result of allowing the Cth's appeal in the above case
I coded this as a liberal dissent because Kirby J went further than the other judges and would have allowed the native title claimaints appeal
Callinan also ordered for this claim to be dismissed but only as a result of allowing the Cth's appeal in the above case
date of order 31 July 2001. First respondents are subject to an extradition order, second respondent is a magsitrate. 

These two appeals were from a single judge of the High Court (Kirby J). Kirby J granted bail to the people who were subject to an extradition order (1st respondents in this matter) and who applied for special leave to appeal. However, special leave had not been granted and was instead referred to the Full Court. The legal issue was whether the High Court had the power to grant bail to people whose special leave applications were referred to the Full Court and therefore not granted - the relevant Act only expressly provided for bail after a grant of special leave.

Mexico (the appellant in this matter) then applied for special leave against the  decisions to grant the first respondents bail. Gummow J, in an expedition hearing, referred the special laeave application directly to the Full Court following.

Thus caseSourceSpecific is coded Other as the source is a single justice of the High Court

As the issue pertains to extradition on bail, i have coded issue2 as public international law as this seems like the most fitting issue
These two appeals were from a single judge of the High Court (Kirby J). Kirby J granted bail to the people who were subject to an extradition order (1st respondents in this matter) and who applied for special leave to appeal. However, special leave had not been granted and was instead referred to the Full Court. The legal issue was whether the High Court had the power to grant bail to people whose special leave applications were referred to the Full Court and therefore not granted - the relevant Act only expressly provided for bail after a grant of special leave.

Mexico (the appellant in this matter) then applied for special leave against the  decisions to grant the first respondents bail. Gummow J, in an expedition hearing, referred the special laeave application directly to the Full Court following.

Thus caseSourceSpecific is coded Other as the source is a single justice of the High Court

As the issue pertains to extradition on bail, i have coded issue2 as public international law as this seems like the most fitting issue
date of order 6 Septmeber 2001
date of order 7 September 2001
Videolink from Perth
direction coded as unspecifiable. NSWCCA allowed defendant's appeal on one ground and ordered a retrial, and did not consider any of the other grounds. Prosecution appealed to HC asking for the matter to be remitted to the NSWCCA for determination on all remaining grounds so that the retrial judge could benefit from those determinations. HCA allowed the prosecution's appeal - this is not really pro-defendant nor pro-prosecution
Date of order 6 December 2001
this is a huge case covering many aspects of native title in WA and NT, which considered many sections in more than 10 pieces of legislation to examine whether it extinguished native title. I have recorded each leg in LawSupp. Coded direction as unspecifiable because in many cases the Court found in favour of native title rights  but in just as many cases found it to have been extinguished
this is a huge case covering many aspects of native title in WA and NT, which considered many sections in more than 10 pieces of legislation to examine whether it extinguished native title. I have recorded each leg in LawSupp. Coded direction as unspecifiable because in many cases the Court found in favour of native title rights  but in just as many cases found it to have been extinguished
this is a huge case covering many aspects of native title in WA and NT, which considered many sections in more than 10 pieces of legislation to examine whether it extinguished native title. I have recorded each leg in LawSupp. Coded direction as unspecifiable because in many cases the Court found in favour of native title rights  but in just as many cases found it to have been extinguished
this is a huge case covering many aspects of native title in WA and NT, which considered many sections in more than 10 pieces of legislation to examine whether it extinguished native title. I have recorded each leg in LawSupp. Coded direction as unspecifiable because in many cases the Court found in favour of native title rights  but in just as many cases found it to have been extinguished
caseDisposition - allowed in part because the HCA ordered that the appeal be dismissed but also amended the orders below
P is representative of a group listed in schedule; schedule inaccessible online, coded as 1 plaintiff.
P is representative of a group listed in schedule; schedule inaccessible online, coded as 1 plaintiff.
Case originated in WA Court of Petty Sessions, coded as magistrates court. Was intermediate court hearing by single judge in WASC.
coded as 'conservative' as anti injured party ina a defamation/torts case. 
Note: Gleeson CJ agreed on the issue but dissented on the order by dismissing one applicant's appeal and allowing the other, which was more favourable to the injured party
Hayne J agreed with Gleeson CJ (agreeing with the majority on the issue but preferring Gleeson's orders)
Callinan J dissented on both the issue and the final order, dismissing both appeals entirely
Decision of natural court 1101, handed down after start of natural court 1102
Decision of natural court 1101, handed down after start of natural court 1102
Note: HC found that legislation was invalid BUT that it did not apply to P's case, so coded partyWinning as a loss for the applicant, but direction being liberal
Decision of natural court 1101, handed down after start of natural court 1102.
Decision of natural court 1101, handed down after start of natural court 1102.
Decision of natural court 1101, handed down after start of natural court 1102.
Decision of natural court 1101, handed down after start of natural court 1102.
Decision of natural court 1101, handed down after start of natural court 1102
This was a purported appeal from a decision by Hayne J dismissing an application to remove a matter to the High Court under s 40 of the Judiciary Act. Their Honours struck out the purported appeal as incompetent.
Date of order 13 February 2003
Date of order 13 February 2003.
Date of order March 4 2003
Order nisi gratned on 18 November 2002 (and amended on 6 May 2003) was discharged.
Date of order 2 September 2003
The High Court held that time limits in the ACT Limitations Act applied to preclude an action.
This is a variation of orders made in an appeal from 2003.
Date of order: 9 December 2003
Note: McHugh J's position was more liberal than the majority's: he held that while the evidence was inadmissible (for not being videotaped) given the other evidence available, there was no miscarriage of justice.
Note: Kirby J's position was more liberal than the majority's: he held that while the evidence was inadmissible (for not being videotaped) given the other evidence available, there was no miscarriage of justice.
The appellant is a youth charged with a crime. Gender is unknown.
The appellant is a youth charged with a crime. Gender is unknown.
Hayne J is described as delivering the leading judgment for the majority.
Hayne J is described as delivering the leading judgment for the majority.
Date of order 20 May 2004
Date of order 22 April 2004
McHugh and Hayne JJ wrote concurring opinions that explicitly agreed with Gummow J.
McHugh and Hayne JJ wrote concurring opinions that explicitly agreed with Gummow J.
The damages awarded also included a small amount under contract (10204)
This case involved the tort of interference with contractual relations.
adminreview: Town Planning Appeal Tribunal
Note - two sets of plurality opinions - Hayne & Heydon, and Gummow and Callinan
Note - two sets of plurality opinions - Gummow and Hayne, and Callinan and Heydon
Orders on 6 April 2005; amended orders on 26 October 2005
Date of Order 10 August 2004
Date of Order 10 August 2004
Date of Order 10 August 2004
Date of Order 10 August 2004
Note - judgement includes hearing application for special leave to cross-appeal heard as on appeal and heard instanter - appeal dismissed
Note - two sets of plurality opinions: Gummow and Hayne, and Gleeson and Heydon
Note - case concerned the sealing of orders in Polyaire Pty Ltd v K-Aire Pty Ltd & Ors - Order: "The orders pronounded by the Court on 16 June 2005 be sealed"
Order made on 9 December 2004, reasons published 31 August 2005. Additional orders made 31 August 2005
Disposition includes allowing of cross-appeal
Disposition includes allowing of cross-appeal
Date of order 29 September 2005
Two sets of plurality opinions: Gleeson and Kirby, and Callinan and Heydon
S524/2004 related to costs - majority dismissed appeal re costs; Callinan held that Respondent liable for costs.
Order includes dismissal of cross-appeal
case concerned powers and roles of Supreme Court on appeal and whether breach of procedural fairness - coded as 90103 Procedure and Ethics - Civil procedure/litigation - Trial Procedure due to lack of suitable issue
issue was to do with bias of trial judge - coded as 50405 - state criminal law - trial conduct
issue was to do with bias of trial judge - coded as 50405 - state criminal law - trial conduct
appellants - "persons named in attached schedule, but could not find schedule". CaseDisposition - order below varied in part, appeal otherwise dismissed.
Order 9 December 2005
adminReview1- coded as South Australia other - SA Industrial Relations Commission
coded as unspecificable as it had to do with whether reinsurance contracts were liabilities to a company in liquidation
Respondents: female teachers discrimiated against - coded as minority, female even though they are not necessarily other minorities except for their gender but I feel they were enough of a minority in this discrimination case
Date of order 17 November 2005
wrote formal concurring dissenting opinion
Callinan J noted that he would have found in favour of the applicants. However, His Honour felt bound by precedent and therefore wrote a formal concurring opinion.
issue: whether double jeopardy applied. Coded as 50406 - state criminal law procedure other
issue: whether double jeopardy applied. Coded as 50406 - state criminal law procedure other
Date of order 15 June 2006.
I have coded as liberal even though it is anti-government in a taxation case. This is because the HCA held that being the recipeient of Federal Govt grant money did not preclude an association's charitable status and therefore the association still had a charitbale purpose and was exempt from Victorian payroll tax (pro-Federal govt)
defandants demurrer accepted
Decision coded as liberal because although the HCA ordered that the injunction to not publish the allegedly defamatory film while defamation proceedings were ongiong be overturned (which is anti-injured party), its primary consideration was free speech, which is pro-human rights.
Case Disposition: HCA varied the order of the court below to correct a misstatement but dismissed the appeal, so I coded as appeal dismissed as the correction was not substnatial
Husband sued wife for tort of deceit for allegedly lying to him about who the father of their children was (she was engaging in an extramarital affair), and claimed the wife was liable for damages for money and earning capacity foregone spent on the children under the misrepresented belief he was their father. HCA held the wife was not liable. Thus pro-female (liberal) but anti injured party (conservative). on the balance, I have coded as liberal
Issue - common law principal of common purpose and complicity Date of order 9 August 2006
Issue - common law principal of common purpose and complicity Date of order 9 August 2006
Issue - common law principal of common purpose and complicity Date of order 9 August 2006
The special leave hearings were held over the course of three days across three months. The timeline is: 1. October 2005 – first SL hearing (Kirby and McHugh) was adjourned due to a lack of contradictor; 2. Early Feb 2006 – second SL hearing (Gummow, Kirby Hayne). Still no contradictor but the court said it was of a mind to grant SL but only if the appellant were to come back later and reformulate the application; 3. Mid Feb 2006 – 3rd SL hearing (Gummow only) granted SL to the reformulated application
Note - two seperate plurality opinions - Kirby and Callinan, and Hayne and Crennan
Note - two sets of plurality opinions - Gummow and Hayne, and Callinan and Heydon
Note - two sets of plurality opinions - Glesson and Crennan, and Gummow and Hayne.
Note - two sets of plurality opinions - Gleenson and Crennan, and Callinan and Heydon
Note - two sets of plurality opinions - Gleenson and Crennan, and Callinan and Heydon
Date of order: 30 August 2007
S166 of 2007 heard with this matter and judgment handed down ex temp on second day of hearing. Court revoked special leave after hearing. Should code this as a separate matter.
Note - two sets of plurality opinions, Gleeson and Heydon, and Gummow and Hayne
Note - two sets of plurality opinions, Kirby and Crennan, and Gummow and Hayne. Gleeson agreed with Kirby and Crennan to form majority
Note - decision included special leave to cross-appeal [being] granted and the cross-appeal be treated as instituted, heard instanter and allowed
Date of order 13 December 2007
Telstra claimed that a declaration by the ACCC to required Telstra to supply services to competitor service providers effected an acquisition of property other than on just terms, contrary to s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. HCA held that Telstra's rights were not impaired and not entitiled to compensation - this is conservative because anti-rights claiminant but also liberal because pro-competition. On the balance, I have coded liberal.
Consent order pronounced 31 July 2008. Coded as unspecifiable. The mother and child migrated to Australia, against the father's wishes (who been found by NZ court to have joint custody of the child). The Director-General, on behalf of the father, made an application for orders requiring the return of the child to NZ.  However, HCA held that the father did not have joint custody of the child. This is arguably liberal, as pro-female in a family law matter. But also arguablly conservative as it is anti-Australia's obligations under intl law. Kirby's dissent also argued that it was against the best interests of the child, meaning unspecifiable as to whether it is pro or anti the child
Order announced orally at hearing on 16 April 2008.
coded as conservative dissent because Heydon wanted to revoked the grant of special leave
each justive wrote their own individual opinions, but on analysis, Hayne wrote the one which most justice mostly agreed to
each justive wrote their own individual opinions, but on analysis, Hayne wrote the one which most justice mostly agreed to
Gummow J wrote a formal concurring opinion in dissent
appeal dismissed, cross appeal leave granted, treated as instituted, heard instanter and allowed
Order on 20 May 2008 revoking special leave grant.
coded as liberal. Although HCA held that an owner was not liable to compensate a subcontractor where the owner had no contract with the subcontractor (as there was no novation of the contract originally signed by the owner with the primary  contractor), the decision is pro-consumer, andti-business
Two sets of plurality opinions
Issue: whether NSWCA was a competent court to hear an appeal against civil contempt when a statute prohibited the hearing of appeals against criminal contempt - coded as Procedure and Ethics-Civil Procedure/Litigation - Choice of Law as this is the closest to the issue. Coded conservative as although HCA found that the NSWCA was competent (pro-judicial power, liberal) the effect was that the appellants were found to be in civil contempt (conservative)
decision coded as liberal - although the HCA held that legal professional privilege of  certain documents that were the subject of FOI applications was not waived (conservative), found that the court below had erred by not inspecting the documents themselves and relying on the Tribunal's assessment of the public interest value of the documents (liberal)
Kirby agreed with the court that the impugned provisions were valid laws under the Constitution but held that the judge misdirected the jury and therefore appeal should be allowed on that basis
Date of Order: 7 August 2008. Coded as conservative - a trustee was sued for breach of trust and applied for judicial advice as to whether it should defend the proceedings and whether they would be entitled to indemnity from the assets of the trust for reasonable legal costs incurred in defending. HCA held that the answer to both questions was yes. Thus it might be conservative as it is anti-injured party (as it allowed the trustee to defend themselves against the injured party, and allowed the trustees to indemnify themselves for reasonable legal costs).
Date of order: 3 September 2008
Date of order: 3 September 2008
Note - Applicant party is a 'native title organisation' - unsure where fits in coding frame. CaseDisposition was "demurrer allowed" which effectively is the same as application dismissed so coded as 6
note- lower court judgement subject to non-publication order
Two plurality opinions
the appellants appealed directly to the HCA via special leave from the decision of the trial judge at first instance (SC of Tasmania) as there was no provision for an intermediary appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Tas.
date of order: 3 April 2009
Two plurality opinions
Two plurality opinions
Note - there was two sets of plurarity opinions: French, Gummow and Crennen, and Hayne, Kiefel and, Bell
S6/2009 decided concurrently, S6/2009 was the original file number for the SL application and represents one issue upon which SL was referred to the full court. S110 is the appeal proper. S6/2009 was limited to the question of whether SL should be granted on a single issue the SL panel could not decided, therefore coded as one matter rather than two
Date of Order 3 December 2009
date of order 30 March 2010
date of order 30 March 2010
Date of Order 15 April 2010
Decided with M11/2009, which dismissed all grounds for SL other than granted in this matter. Matter excluded from dataset
date of order: 20 October 2010
The joint judgment agrees with the reasons given by Heydon J and so Heydon J is identified as writing the opinion of the Court.

While the legal issue in this case revolves around whether the Federal Court could hear an appeal, the underlying issue revolves around native title and indigenous land use agreements
Heydon J wrote a substantive dissenting opinion. Ie, he agreed with Bell J's dissent and added three additional reasons.
This case is about whether the landholder was entitled to compensation for a compulsory acquisition under state legislation. It is coded 'conservative' because the court found compensation was not required.
Two sets of plurality opinions
Two sets of plurality opinions
This was a case about s 109 inconsistency. It considered the Construction Indsutry Long Service Leave Act 1997 (Vic) and Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
This case raises a number of constitutional questions, including relating to the judicial power of the Commonwealth. However, the issue that ultimately determines the result is a finding of statutory interpretation about whether s 5 of the Drugs Act creates a legal or evidential burden. The coding for this case proceeds on this basis (rather than the varied views on judicial power).
We have French CJ and Hayne J writing substantive opinions that concur with Gummow J. Which option in varVote should Gummow J's judgment be coded?
Oral argument included two additional cases B26 of 2011 and B27 of 2011; decision does not relate to these cases
Oral argument included two additional cases B26 of 2011 and B27 of 2011; decision does not relate to these cases
I have coded this other criminal procedure on the basis that it is a close analogy to criminal procedure.
date of order 3 August 2011
This is more a substantive concurring dissenting opinion.
date of order 3 August 2011
This is more a substantive concurring dissenting opinion.
Heard with B24 of 2011 and B28 of 2011; opinion does not relate to these two appeals. Seperate opinion issues
Heard with B24 of 2011 and B28 of 2011; opinion does not relate to these two appeals. Seperate opinion issues
Heydon J concurred on the outcome. He took a more conservative approach to the test for the implied freedom of political communication. Should this be reflected in the coding in some way?
It appears that the question of admissibility was decided on the basis of common law rules of evidence, rather than specific reference to Queensland's Evidence Act.
Wrote a concurring dissenting opinion
Lcdisposition: question of law referred to LC answered and remitted back to disctrict court
The 'declarationUnconstitutional' field has been left blank as it was the executive's appropriation of funds that was found ultra vires and unconstitutional. None of the available options correlate.
lcDisposition - appeal dismissed against conviction, allowed against sentence, remitted to lc for resentencing
AdminReview - Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia
date of order 16 August 2012
date of order 20 June 2012
While Heydon J allowed the appeal, unlike the majority (who quashed the convictions and did not order a new trial), Heydon J ordered that a new trial be held on one of the three bases originally put forward by the Prosecution.
Heydon J went further than the other judges, finding that there was no need to remit the matter to the Australian Competition Tribunal. It was 'more of a win' for the Pilbara.
Heydon J went further than the other judges, finding that there was no need to remit the matter to the Australian Competition Tribunal. It was 'more of a win' for the Pilbara.
Heydon J went further than the other judges, finding that there was no need to remit the matter to the Australian Competition Tribunal. It was 'more of a win' for the Pilbara.
Heydon J went further than the other judges, finding that there was no need to remit the matter to the Australian Competition Tribunal. It was 'more of a win' for the Pilbara.
Heydon J went further than the other judges, finding that there was no need to remit the matter to the Australian Competition Tribunal. It was 'more of a win' for the Pilbara.
Both appelant and defendant: persons found liable of the tort for loss of employee services in lc, appealing and cross-appealing to shift the apportionment of liability
Both appelant and defendant: persons found liable of the tort for loss of employee services in lc, appealing and cross-appealing to shift the apportionment of liability
The caseDisposition is 'other' because the court overruled the plaintiff's demurrer and entered judgment for the defendant.

Date of order: 15 August 2012
A number of the decisions refer to agreeing with the oders proposed by Gummow J. I have relied on this to identify Gummow J as authoring the plurality opinion of Court majority.
Date of order: 15 August 2012
A number of the decisions refer to agreeing with the oders proposed by Gummow J. I have relied on this to identify Gummow J as authoring the plurality opinion of Court majority.
lcdisposition - other - appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed
This is coded a liberal dissent because Gummow and Bell JJ found that cl 866.225 was valid. However, they held that Al Kateb was wrongly decided, and that the applicants should not be detained while the government sought to remove them.
This is coded a liberal dissent because Gummow and Bell JJ found that cl 866.225 was valid. However, they held that Al Kateb was wrongly decided, and that the applicants should not be detained while the government sought to remove them.
Date of order 7 August 2012
This decision is coded unspecifiable. It is not pro government in a taxation dispute. However, it is also an administrative law matter looking into scope of the Commissioner's powers. On that front, it is pro individual.
Included as lwConMatter even though lw excluded bc the criteria for exclusion is not applicable for this dataset
Included as lwConMatter even though lw excluded bc the criteria for exclusion is not applicable for this dataset
authoritydecision - rests on interpretation of the doctrine of joint enterprise - common law
authoritydecision - rests on interpretation of the doctrine of joint enterprise - common law
authoritydecision - rests on interpretation of the doctrine of joint enterprise - common law
caseDisposition - questions from special case answered
Hayne J direction coded as conservative dissent - although His Honour held that TSH visa not validly issued, he also found that the applicant's was not validly issued a bridging visa, meaning their application for a protection visa was still invalid
Related case 2013014
Primary issue type: military/defence discipline: coded as federal criminal law
Coded Hayne as liberal dissent as his Honour argued there was no patenet to infringe upon in the first place
AppelantType: contradictor
coded as 'liberal' as held ACT law inconsistent with Federal law - pro federal power and pro national government. Although the effect is to limit the rights of same-sex couples.
PrimaryIssue: coded as public international law, as interepretation of extradition treaty
The 3rd party had committed a fraud. The issue was whether the respondent could retain monies paid on the basis that it had changed its position in reliance of the fraud (which occurred unbeknownst to them)
This decision is classified unspecifiable. It does not fall within any of the categories for liberal or conservative listed in the codebook (or any extrapolation therefrom)
Orders issued June 19 2014
Note: Keane J's decision is more conservative than the majority's position.
Note: Keane J's decision is more conservative than the majority's position.
Note: Keane J's decision is more conservative than the majority's position.
Hayne J held that the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the key legislation in question, but found he had standing to challenge three provisions in the Criminal Code as well as some provisions in the Liquor Code and found that these were invalid.
There were three appellants in this case. The majority held that the first appellant did not have standing to apply for judicial review. Gageler J dissented on this point and held that standing extended to the first appellant.
Coded as liberal as pro-bankrupt
date of order 12 August 2015
Nettle J dissented on only one question pertaining to prohibition of political donations by property developers: His Honour held this did impersmissibly burden the implied freedom
intepretation of a contract coded as state Common law. Coded as liberal as it is pro-compensation in a contracts case
intepretation of a contract coded as state Common law. Coded as liberal as it is pro-compensation in a contracts case
coded as conservative as anti-person guilty of crime. However, could arguably liberal as pro-federal (held that sentencing should have regard to sentencing practices in all states not just Victoria)
coded as 'Conservative' because the HCA held that the bank accounts of Nauru in Australia were covered by foreign government immunity and thus could not be subject to a garnishee order to pay damages arising from an action in a foreign court
caseDisposition: coded as other because the court discmissed the appeal but ordered to vary in part the orders of the lower court
coded as 'unspecified' - the HCA ruled that it was permissible for parties to make joint submissions to a court seeking the imposition of an agreed penalty between the parties. Also held Court was not bound by that submission
coded as 'unspecified' - the HCA ruled that it was permissible for parties to make joint submissions to a court seeking the imposition of an agreed penalty between the parties. Also held Court was not bound by that submission
coded conservative as pro-corporation in tax claims. However, there is an argument that is liberal as it is pro-bankrupt
Nettle J dissented on the issue but concurred on the order
date of order 10 February 2016
date of order 12 May 2016
date of order 10 November 2016
date of order 10 November 2016
Orders on 13 December 2016
Orders given 4 May 2017
orders 7 September 2017
orders 7 September 2017
Orders 17 August 2017
date of order 15 November, 2017
Date of Order: 6 February 2018
Date of Order: 13 February 2018
Date of Order: 11 May 2018
Date of Order: 11 May 2018
Date of Order: 19 April 2018
Date of Order: 19 June 2018
Date of Order: 19 June 2018
Note - Johnson was a child when he committed the offences but was only tried many decades later when he was an adult
Date of order 8 November 2018
Date of order 8 November 2018
Date of order 8 November 2018
Date of order 8 November 2018
Note: DPP (Vic) made a reference to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) based on an acquittal from a trial in the Vic Supreme Court. As the reference is technically its own case and separate to the trial (as the outcome to the trial is undisturebd regardless of the outcome of the refernece), I have coded this case as originating in the Vic Court of Appeal
removal. Note impugned State Act was one prohibiting protests within a zone near abortion clinics - I have coded as Morality Legislation but could easily come under a different category e.g. community welfare. Thoughts?
removal. Note impugned State Act was one prohibiting protests within a zone near abortion clinics - I have coded as Morality Legislation but could easily come under a different category e.g. community welfare. Thoughts?
note: appellants lost by the Court, and cross-appeal was granted by a majority (Edelman dissenting).  Special leave to cross appeal was referred to and granted by the full bench.I have coded caseDisposition as 15 and Edelman as a dissent
date of order 17 April 2019. Note that this case was quite large and covered four main issues: whether Cth had power to legislate, s 109 issue, implied immunity issue, implied political comm issue. Majority relied on different issues to come to the same order.
date of order 13 February 2019
date of order 7 May 2019
note: appellant won substantively in lower court but appealed the costs order from the lower court
date of order 19 June 2019
issue was about female genital mutilation - coded as 50301 - other offences against the person
issue was about female genital mutilation - coded as 50301 - other offences against the person
issue was about female genital mutilation - coded as 50301 - other offences against the person
date of order 11 September 2019
note: constitutional issue and judicial review issue raised but did not need to be decided as part of the decision
note: constitutional issue and judicial review issue raised but did not need to be decided as part of the decision
issue: common law tort of false imprisonment
Uncon as applied to appellants and similarly situated persons
Uncon as applied to appellants and similarly situated persons
There are two appeals after the originating justice decision, a three justice panel granted an appeal and referred appeal to five justice panel. Only the originating single justice decision and the five justice panel are coded.
Heard with 2020035 for special leave and oral argument. Saved duplicate copies of each under each HCDBID
Heard with 2020033 for special leave and oral argument. Saved duplicate copies of each under each HCDBID
SL revoked because appellant passed away