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.



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.



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.