North Coast Environment Council Case

Credit: Jo-Anne MCARTHUR, WEANIMALS.oRG

Credit: Jo-Anne MCARTHUR, WEANIMALS.oRG

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.

Owner not guilty of animal cruelty despite mistreatment of horse

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.

 

Dan Pero Manescu (Q-ART) used under creative commons

Dan Pero Manescu (Q-ART) used under creative commons

Animal protection group awarded standing in the Federal Court

CREDIT: JO-ANNE MCARTHUR, WEANIMALS.ORG

CREDIT: JO-ANNE MCARTHUR, WEANIMALS.ORG

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. 

Mark and Others v Henshaw (1998) 155 ALR 118

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.

CREDIT: JO-ANNE MCARTHUR, WEANIMALS.ORG 

CREDIT: JO-ANNE MCARTHUR, WEANIMALS.ORG 

Laurence Nathan Levy v The State Of Victoria & Ors (1997) 146 ALR 248

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.

Humane Society International Inc. v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2008] FCA 3

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.

CREDIT: JO-ANNE MCaRTHUR, WEANIMALS.ORG

CREDIT: JO-ANNE MCaRTHUR, WEANIMALS.ORG

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pirovic Enterprises Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 544

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.

Isbester v Knox City Council [2015] HCA 20 (Izzy's Case)

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.