Binsaris v Northern Territory (2020) 94 ALJR 664 at 670-671 [28] - provides that the common law powers include those to prevent the commission of a crime to apprehend a person suspected of having committed an offence. Enever v The King [1906] HCA 3 - provides that the common law powers include those to prevent breaches of the peace.  R v Turner [1962] VicRp 2; [1962] VR 30 - provides that the exercise of the common law powers, like the statutory powers, is subject to constraints, such as doing only that which is reasonable and necessary.

Attorney-General (UK) v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273; [1973] 3 All ER 54 - Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said that the phrase contempt of court is one which is compendious to include not only disobedience to orders of a court but also certain types of behaviour or varieties of publications in reference to proceedings before courts of law which overstep the bounds which liberty permits.  Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22 - discussed the general principles that apply in cases of contempt by improper pressure on a party.   Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd[1968] HCA 1; (1968) 118 CLR 618 - explained how the applicant has established a prima facie case that Mr Stolz's c

Palmer v Western Australia [2021] HCA 5 - held that an exercise of power that complies with the statutory constraints will always be in compliance with the freedom.

X7 v Australian Crime Commission[2013] HCA 29 - provides that criminal proceedings are also accusatorial in nature, which requires that the Crown prove its case and cannot require an accused to assist in doing so. 

De Jesus v The Queen [1986] HCA 65 - where Macfarlan JA reasoned that a ruling against the cross‑admissibility of evidence relating to multiple counts would ordinarily result in an order for separate trials, because of the difficulty of confining the jury to permissible non-tendency reasoning. 

Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock [2007] HCA 60; (2007) 232 CLR 245 - provides that in the common law defence of fair comment on a matter public interest, it is the defamatory meaning found to have been conveyed which is to be considered.    Joseph v Spiller [2010] UKSC 53; [2011] 1 AC 852 - where the comment must identify at least in general terms what it is that has led the commentator to make the comment, so that the reader can understand what the comment is about and the commentator can, if challenged, explain by giving particulars of the subject matter of his comment why he expressed the views that he did.   O’Shaughnessy v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1970) 72 SR(NSW) 347 - where it

O’Brien v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2016] NSWSC 1289 - where McCallum J, after referring to Manock and Ahmed, accepted that the meaning pleaded by the plaintiff is relevant to the defence of honest opinion under s 31 and that “a question to be posed for the tribunal of fact is whether the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the meaning found to have been conveyed as comment as opposed to fact”.    Telnikoff v Matusevitch [1992] UKHL 2; [1992] 2 AC 343 - provides that the question of whether the words in the Tweet are a statement of fact or of opinion should be decided by a consideration of the words themselves. 

an objection granting the factual basis of an opponent's point but dismissing it as irrelevant or invalid.  

Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 37; (2015) 256 CLR 104 - provided that the rights and liabilities of parties under a provision of a contract are determined objectively, by reference to its text, context (the entire text of the contract as well as any contract, document or statutory provision referred to in the text of the contract) and purpose. 

Westfield Management Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [2007] HCATrans 367 - where Hodgson JA said that a development consent should be construed, like a contract, to preserve its validity and to avoid uncertainty. 

Purvis v New South Wales [2003] HCA 62 - where it was held that discrimination jurisprudence establishes that the circumstances of the person alleged to have suffered discriminatory treatment and which are related to the prohibited ground are to be excluded from the circumstances of the comparator.

Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539 - held that the scope of the duty in tort will usually be set by the terms of the retainer (which indicates the nature of the relationship that gives rise to the tortious duty of care).