Edwards v Hunter Valley Co-op Dairy Co Ltd (1992) 7 ANZ Ins Cas 61-113 - explained that an insurer is also under a duty of good faith and fair dealing, which requires it to have due regard for the interests of the claimant. Hannover Life Re of Australasia v Jones [2017] NSWCA 233 - confirmed that an insurer’s duty of utmost good faith in dealing with a claim is independent of the implied term to act reasonably. TAL Life Ltd v Shuetrim (2016) 91 NSWLR 439; [2016] NSWCA 68 - provides that the insurer had to act reasonably in arriving at its decisions.

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at 384 [78] - provides that "the duty of a court is to give the words of a statutory provision the meaning that the legislature is taken to have intended them to have".  Kennedy v Lowe; Ex parte Lowe [1985] 1 Qd R 48 at 49 - provides that "when inconsistencies or ambiguities appear they are dealt with by [c]ourts according to the established principles of statutory interpretation".

Public Health and Wellbeing Act (the ‘PHW Act’) ss 200(1)(b) and (d) - provides that the emergency powers exercisable by the CHO include the power to ‘restrict the movement of any person or group of persons within the emergency area’ and to ‘give any other direction that the authorised officer considers is reasonably necessary to protect public health’. 

Public Health and Wellbeing Act (the ‘PHW Act’) - empowers authorised officers, appointed by the Chief Health Officer (‘CHO’), to exercise ‘emergency powers’ when a ‘state of emergency’ has been declared by the Minister for Health (‘the Minister’). 

Alwer v McLean [2000] VSC 396; (2000) 116 A Crim R 364 - where a speeding charge was found to be invalid because it failed to refer to an essential element of the offence provision.  Glenister v Magistrates’ Court of Victoria [2014] VSC 265 - where Ginnane J held that the existing charge-sheet, because it did not contain the essential elements of charges 1, 2 and 3 or the particulars that were necessary to give reasonable information as to the nature of the charges, did not sufficiently disclose the nature of the offences. Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v Glenister [2015] VSCA 344; (2015) 257 IR 204 - where the first defendant submitted that on appeal from Glenister, Ferguson and McLeish JJA in thei

Bettencourt v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 172 - established that the exercise of the power to revoke the cancellation of a visa which arises when an affected party makes representations in support of revocation requires a real and genuine consideration of each substantial and clearly expressed claim. 

State of New South Wales v Elmir (Final) [2019] NSWSC 1867 - where it was discussed that ‘extremism’ is the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism’. Violent extremism can, therefore, be understood as violence motivated by, or undertaken in furtherance of, extreme political or religious views.

Hill v Wilson [1873] UKLawRpCh 70 - provides that a gift "requires the assent of both minds". Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Cornell [1946] HCA 32 - provides that the subject matter of a gift can vest in a donee before the donee actually assents.

Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 - provided that the implied freedom is a limitation on legislative power, that prevents the State and Commonwealth Parliaments from enacting legislation that imposes an unjustifiable burden on communication on political and governmental matters. 

BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 - provides the principle that a term implied into a contract is one which it is presumed the parties would have agreed upon had they turned their minds to it. 

a Court's authoritative approval.  

Sutton v The Queen [1984] HCA 5; (1984) 152 CLR 528 at 545 - explained that in a criminal trial evidence of the commission of offences other than the offence charged is prima facie inadmissible against an accused person.  B v The Queen [1992] HCA 68; (1992) 175 CLR 599 - provides that evidence admitted for one purpose is not admissible for another purpose, and cannot be used for another purpose.