Whittaker v Unisysis Australia Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 9 - provided that a repudiatory breach does not automatically terminate the contract but confers an elective right of termination on the innocent party. 

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564, cited - held that it is not in doubt that, where a decision-making process involves different steps or stages before a final decision is made, the requirements of natural justice are satisfied if ‘the decision-making process, viewed in its entirety, entails procedural fairness’.” Gurani v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 315 ALR 130, cited - where the Full Federal Court applied this principle by reference to whether adverse conclusions ultimately drawn by the decision-maker were “surprising or procedurally unfair”.

Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 - the Minister's power must include dealing with contingencies, including those which are highly unlikely or which may never eventuate for the object of “prevent[ing]” the spread of any disease and is, accordingly, a wide power Digest Larter v Hazzard (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1451 (10 November 2021) - where it was provided that the 90-day time limit in 7(5) requires the Minister to review the need for an order within that period and make another order if the continuing risk to public health was thought to require it.

Veen v The Queen [No 2] [1988] HCA 14; 1988 164 CLR 465 - the Court held that 'community protection through incapacitation of an offender can only operate within the confines of the principle of proportionality’.

Menichelli v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 111, 19 Tas R 299 - provided that sentencing proceedings are not a private matter between the victim and the offender, and that a serious crime as a wrong committed against the community at large and the community itself is entitled to retribution. 

Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 - where the Court noted that the plaintiff must establish a special interest in the subject matter of the proceeding over and above other members of the public in order to have standing to bring a proceeding. 

Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Ltd [2010] HCA 31; (2010) 241 CLR 357 - held that statutory claims for misleading or deceptive conduct require clear identification of the conduct said to be misleading or deceptive. 

Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1996] HCA 47; (1996) 185 CLR 183 - Dawson, McHugh and Gummow JJ said that in this context “a subject of public interest mean[s] the actions or omissions of a person or institution engaged in activities that either inherently, expressly or inferentially [invite] public criticism or discussion”.

Hinch v Attorney-General (Vic) [1987] HCA 56; 164 CLR 15 - provides that there must, however, be a “substantial risk of serious interference” or a “real and definite tendency to prejudice or embarrass pending proceedings” or “clear tendency” to interfere with the course of justice. 

PJB v Melbourne Health (Patrick’s Case) [2011] VSC 327; (2011) 39 VR 373 - provides that where the decision is claimed to be incompatible with a human right, contrary to s 38(1) of the Charter, the Court’s jurisdiction is supervisory, not substitutionary, and does not involve reconsidering the merits of the decision.

State of New South Wales v Cheema (Preliminary) [2020] NSWSC 876 - where it was held that the definition of a terrorist act under s 100.1 of the Criminal Code is broad and encompasses a range of preparatory offences and acts falling short of actual terrorist acts which cause injury to persons or damage to property.

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA [2019] HCA 3; (2019) 264 CLR 421 - provides that the test for materiality is when the error would have been material to the Exemption Decision.  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.