Vissza| Basic information | Substance of the ruling | Accessibility of the case and further relevant links | |||||||
| Date | Name of the case (or case number) | The body delivering the decision | Keywords, topic | Executive part | Brief summary | Full text | Page at the website of the issuing court | Page in other databases | Unofficial materials, press communications |
| September 7. 2023. | 2023] HCA 27 | High Court of Australia | Right to work; labour law | The High Court of Australia held that an airline company illegally laid off around 1000 workers during the peak of the global pandemic, and the dismissed employees are entitled to seek for compensation. | The High Court of Australia rejected an appeal of an airline company which laid off around 1000 employees during the peak of the global pandemic to avoid collective bargaining. The employees were replaced with contractors, however, this practice was found to be unlawful by the High Court. The High Court referred back the case to the Federal Court, where the dismissed employees could seek financial compensation from the airline company. | The High Court of Australia rejected an appeal of an airline company which laid off around 1000 employees during the peak of the global pandemic to avoid collective bargaining. The employees were replaced with contractors, however, this practice was found to be unlawful by the High Court. The High Court referred back the case to the Federal Court, where the dismissed employees could seek financial compensation from the airline company. | https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2023/hca-27-2023-09-13.pdf | https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/australias-qantas-loses-appeal-workforce-outsourcing-case-2023-09-13/ | |
| October 14. 2022. | Star Entertainment v Chubb Insurance Aus | High Court of Australia | Right to conduct a business | The High Court of Australia held that insurers should not compensate the harms caused by the global pandemic for the insured persons, since the global pandemic means a catastrophe, which constitutes a proper excuse for the insurers. | The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning the duties of insurers during the public health emergency to compensate economic losses caused by the economic restrictions. The insurers claimed that Covid-19 pandemic amounts to a catastrophe, therefore, insurers should not cover the losses of the insured persons. By contrast, insured persons argued, that the insurers have the obligation to provide adequate compensation. The HighCourt upheld the claim of the insurers, and narrowed the duties of these companies concerning the damages caused by the curfew measures. | https://jade.io/article/951421?at_hl=chubb%20insurance%20v%20star%20entertainment | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/australia-high-court-australia-star-entertainment-v-chubb-insurance-aus-2022-hcatrans | ||
| February 24. 2021. | Palmer v Western Australia [2021] HCA 5 | High Court of Australia | Freedom of movement; right to conduct a business; discrimination; separation of powers | The High Court of Australia upheld the constitutionality of certain Covid-related curfew measures especially the ban on entering into Western-Australia during the first vawes of the epidemic unless one has been granted an exempt traveler status. | Two individuals were denied to be granted exempt traveler status in Western-Australia, therefore, they challenged the validity of the ban on entering into the region of Western-Australia during the first vawes of the epidemic unless one optains an exempt traveler status. The lower courts upheld the validity of the impugned measures, then, claimants turned to the High Court. The High Court held that although the impugned measures clearly interfere into the right to free movement; conduct a business; and non-discrimination of the claimants, and also affect the trade between the regions of Australia, such far-reaching state interferences were justified in the special public health emergency context. | https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2021/HCA/5 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/australia-high-court-australia-palmer-v-western-australia-2021-hca-5-2021-02-24 | https://www.crownlaw.qld.gov.au/about/news/palmer-v-western-australia-2021-hca-5 | |
| December 10. 2020. | Gerner & Arnor. v Victoria | High Court of Australia | Freedom of movement | The High Court of Australia held that the Constitution of Australia does not implicitly provide an absolute prohibition on restricting freedom of movement, therefore, the lockdown decrees in Victoria were valid and constitutional. | Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, state of emergency has been declared in Victoria, Australia, and this was prolonged several times by the Government of Victoria. As part of the curfew regime, strict lockdown measures were ordered, which were challenged by the claimant, who contested the validity of mobility restrictions within Victoria and cross the border of Victoria. The claimant argued that the Constitution of Australia provides implicitly a prohibition on any limitation of freedom of movement. The High Court rejected this argument and held that freedom of movement is subject to necessary restrictions especially under special circumstances, therefore, the impugned measures were valid and constitutional. | https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2020/HCA/48 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/australia-high-court-australia-gerner-arnor-v-victoria-2020-12-10 | ||
| 04. 09. 2020 | Case B26/2020, Palmer & Anor v. The State of Western Australia & Anor | High Court of Australia | Freedom of movement of people, goods | Claim rejected. | The Minister for Emergency Services for Western Australia declared a state of emergency in Western Australia. When the directions took effect, they prohibited entry into Western Australia unless they were the subject to exemption. By reason of the Constitution, the applicant required a declaration that the Directions were invalid. The wording of the constitution provides that “trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States … shall be absolutely free“. Applicant also claimed that the Directions imposed a burden on the freedom of intercourse by prohibiting cross-border movement. The High Court held that the Quarantine Directions and the authorising legislation were not impermissibly infringing the Constitution of Australia. | https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/02-Brisbane/b26-2020/Palmer-BorderSP.pdf | https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/02-Brisbane/b26-2020/Palmer-BorderSP.pdf https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2021/hca-5-2021-02-24.pdf | https://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/palmer-v-the-state-of-western-australia-2021-hca-5/ | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_v_Western_Australia
https://www.wa.gov.au/government/document-collections/covid-19-coronavirus-declarations https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-03/wa-closes-borders-to-stop-coronavirus-travel-ban-explained/12116140 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-22/clive-palmer-threatens-high-court-challenge-wa-border-closure/12276368 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-02/clive-palmer-and-mark-mcgowan-defame-each-other-judge-finds/100098974 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Palmer-Dunning-converted.pdf |