| Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption - Commissioner Heydon’s reasons for ruling on disqualification applications - applications dismissed |
| Commissioner of Highways v Farmer No 2 Pty Ltd; Commissioner of Highways v M & B Farmer Nominees Pty Ltd (SASCFC) - compulsory acquisition of land - interest not payable on non-monetary compensation - appeals allowed |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption
Reasons for Ruling on Disqualification Applications
Commissioner Heydon
Royal Commission - bias - four groups of persons sought disqualification on ground of apprehended bias - applications centred on an agreement to deliver Sixth Annual Sir Garfield Barwick Address, an event organised by Lawyer’s Branch and Legal Policy Branch of NSW Division of Liberal Party of Australia (agreement) - applicants contended agreement might cause fair-minded lay observer reasonably to apprehend Commissioner might not bring impartial mind to resolution of questions in course of Commission’s inquiries - two main submissions: ‘Liberal Party Event’ submission and ‘Liberal Party fundraiser’ submission - Commissioner rejected ‘Liberal Party Event’ submission for three reasons: ‘no apprehension of bias from non-political speech’, ‘no logical connection between any predisposition and the issues’ and ‘no reason to find incapacity to deal with issues impartially’ - Commissioner rejected ‘Liberal Party fundraiser’ submission for three reasons: ‘no apprehension of intention to raise funds or generate support’, ‘no logical connection between any predisposition and the issues’ and ‘no reason to find incapacity to deal with issues’ - Commissioner concluded it was not the case that fair-minded lay observer might apprehend Commissioner might not bring impartial mind to resolution of questions - applications dismissed.
RoyalCommission
|
Commissioner of Highways v Farmer No 2 Pty Ltd; Commissioner of Highways v M & B Farmer Nominees Pty Ltd [2015] SASCFC 121
Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia
Gray, Kelly & Nicholson JJ
Real property - compulsory acquisition of land - appellant compulsorily acquired respondents’ land - part of land surplus to appellant’s requirements - parties agreed on monetary compensation and provision of non-monetary compensation namely transfer of surplus land to back to respondents - parties disputed whether interest payable on non-monetary compensation - Commissioner submitted trial judge erred in finding s33 Land Acquisition Act 1969 (SA) created entitlement to interest on non-monetary compensation - ss10, 11, 12, 12B, 15, 16, 17, 22B, 23, 23A, 23C, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 33 - held: interest not payable on non-monetary compensation provided in respect of compulsory acquisition of land - appeals allowed.
Commissioner
|
|
