The rules applicable to standing were widened in the North Coast Environment Council case, where the Federal Court held the non-for-profit organisation had a special interest in the subject matter of the litigation. By falling within the scope of a ‘person aggrieved’ under s 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), the organisation was entitled to request a statement of reasons for the Minister of Resources decision to grant a licence to export woodchips.
The Animal Law Institute is building an extensive library of key animal law cases from around Australia. If there is a particular case you are looking for, you can find it by either typing in the case name, relevant jurisdiction or matter. If the case you are looking for is not located on our Case Database, please do not hesitate to contact us and we will endeavour to add it to our Case Database as soon as practicably possible.
The Supreme Court of South Australia found that the owner of a horse was not guilty of the criminal offence of failing to provide the horse appropriate and adequate food. As the trial magistrate’s advantage of hearing the evidence before the court first hand, Justice Davis was not prepare to interfere with the magistrate’s conclusion that it was not proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the horse’s condition was caused by the owner’s conduct and actions.
Although their appeal was ultimately dismissed, the animal protection group Animals Angels was found to have standing in bringing their case against the Department of Agriculture. The Full Court of the Federal Court rejected Animals Angels statutory construction of the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Act 1997 (Cth), concluding that s 23 of the Act did not conferred a discretionary and permissive power on the Department.
After entering the premises of a battery hen farm, the Federal Court found Mark and others did not have a ‘reasonable excuse’ to trespass, breaching s 11(1) of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971. The Court clarified the two-step test in determining whether a ‘reasonable excuse’ applies, finding that the dominant purpose of the appellant’s actions was not reasonable.
In separate judgments, the High Court found that the Wildlife (Game) (Hunting Season) Regulations 1994 were valid and did not infringe the implied right to freedom of political communication. The case demonstrates that freedom of political communication can be curtailed to a degree that is reasonable, appropriate and adapted for the purpose of serving the ‘legitimate end’ of the legislation.
In a landmark decision, the Federal Court found that the Humane Society International had standing to bring an injunction against the respondent Japanese company, which owned several ocean vessels engaged in whaling activities in waters claimed by Australia. The respondent was found to have contravened various provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and as such an injunction was ordered against the respondent from killing, injuring, taking or interfering with whales in the Australian Whale Sanctuary.
In alleging Pirovic Enterprises breached s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law by marketing its eggs as free range, the ACCC attempted to adduce expert evidence via video link. The Court clarified the relevant considerations to be taken into account when deciding whether the discretionary power conferred by s 47A(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 should be exercised.
The High Court has found that the fundamental legal principle of procedural fairness applies to Council panels who are required to determine whether a dog should be destroyed under the Domestic Animals Act 1994. The Court found that the Council member had apprehended bias in participating in the Council panel, which afforded the dog’s owner the right to have the decision quashed by an order in the nature of certiorari.