Glossary
Alphabetical Terms
A B C D E G I J L M N O P Q R S T U V W


I

Bolten v Stoltenberg [2018] NSWSC 1518 - held that “injunctive relief should only be granted [when] there is a real risk that the defendant will repeat the imputations found by the court to be defamatory of the plaintiff and indefensible”.    Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 - where it was held that in order to qualify for the relief that they seek, the applicants must demonstrate that they have a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favours the grant of an injunction.
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia [1986] HCA 58; (1986) 161 CLR 148 - provides that an applicant for interlocutory injunctive relief must, in showing that the balance of convenience favours that outcome, point to inconvenience for which an award of damages at trial would not be a sufficient remedy. 


J

Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 - held that the judicial review of an administrative decision is not a procedure in the nature of an appeal which permits a general review of the decision or a substitution of the decision which the court considers ought to have been made.  Minister for Border Protection v SZVFW[2018] HCA 30; (2018) 357 ALR 408 - provides that the court’s role on judicial review is supervisory and confined: “The duty and jurisdiction of the court to review administrative action do not go beyond the declaration and enforcing of the law which determines the limits and governs the exercise of the repository’s power.”   
Basetec Services Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 762; 236 FCR 432 - provides that the Court has jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain a threatened contempt of court.  Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; 227 CLR 57 - noted that while the freedom is not absolute, it is one which the Court does not lightly restrain by injunction.   


L

The argument's that have failed in proving unlawfulness:Freedom of Political Communication: Cotterill v Romanes [2021] VSC 498, [1], [13]–[19] - Niall JA rejected an argument that sub-ss 200(1)(b) and (d) of the Public Health Act were invalid because they impose an impermissible burden on the freedom of political communication implied in the Australian Constitution.  Bennett v President, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2003] FCA 1433 - Finn J held that a direction issued by an Australian Government agency to employees will not be ‘lawful and reasonable’ where it infringes the implied constitutional guarantee of freedom of communication about government and political matters. A
Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v NSW (No 2) [1955] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127 - provides that to be fit and proper, a legal practitioner must be honest, independent, able to judge what ethical conduct is required of them, and then be capable of diligently discharging the responsibilities of their office.  Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70 - provides that a legal practitioner must be ‘possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public, without further inquiry, as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licence entails. 


M

Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34; (2018) 264 CLR 123 - observed that materiality is a common restriction upon the issue of a writ of certiorari for both jurisdictional error and error of law on the face of the record.
R v Doan [2000] NSWCCA 317 - where the maximum applicable penalty is lower because the charge has been prosecuted within the limited summary jurisdiction of the Local Court, that court should impose a penalty reflecting the objective seriousness of the offence, tempered if appropriate by subjective circumstances, taking care only not to exceed the maximum jurisdictional limit. 
Fallon v Johnson [2018] VSC 273 at [19] - where a plaintiff suffers loss due to their motor vehicle being written off in a collision due to the negligence of the defendant, the ordinary principle that damages are compensatory applies, as does the ordinary principle that the plaintiff must mitigate their damage. Portbury Development Company Pty Ltd v Ottedin Investments Pty Ltd[2014] VSC 57 at [158] - where the onus of proof as to the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate his loss rests on the defendant.   Hardie Finance Corporation Pty Ltd v Ahern [No 3] [2010] WASC 403 at [767], [770] - provides that a plaintiff will not be held to have acted unreasonably simply because the defendant can suggest


N

Nolan v Nolan [2003] VSC 121; (2003) 10 VR 626 - where it was held that the essential elements required to establish a valid gift were set out as being the intention to make a gift (usually expressed by words), the intention on the part of the donee to accept the gift and delivery ("Nolan Test").


O

Bell v The Queen [2018] VSCA 281 - where an offence of dangerous driving causing death (constituted by a car turning at an intersection and striking a pedestrian) that involved inattention by the driver for perhaps four seconds was found to be an instance of momentary inattention and an offence disclosing only low moral culpability. Digest  R v Hackett [2021] VSC 773 (26 November 2021) - where Mr Hackett’s offence did not involve the aggravating features commonly seen in more serious examples of dangerous driving causing death as he was neither speeding nor was affected by drugs or alcohol or sleep deprivation. 
Rowlands v State of New South Wales (2009) 74 NSWLR 715; [2009] NSWCA 136 - provides that the ordering of particular medical examinations must be for the purpose of obtaining evidence about a plaintiff’s medical condition, and cannot be justified by the purpose of obtaining evidence that might go to the plaintiff’s veracity generally or in relation to the plaintiff’s account of the events alleged to have caused the injury or condition in question.  Didani v Downes-Brydon [2021] VSCA 281 - stated that if a medical panel is asked for an opinion as to whether any present medical condition is relevant to an injury that is only expressed in terms of a subjectively experienced symptom of pain, it
SSL Certificates