High Court of Australia
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GAGELER CJ,
GORDON, EDELMAN, STEWARD, GLEESON, JAGOT AND BEECH‑JONES JJ
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
TASMANIA APPELLANT
AND
GREGORY JOHN CASIMATY & ANOR RESPONDENTS
Attorney-General (Tas) v Casimaty
[2024] HCA 31
Date of Hearing: 9 April 2024
Date of Judgment: 11 September 2024
H3/2023
ORDER
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the orders made by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 4 May 2023 and, in their place, order that the appeal from the orders made by the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 21 February 2022 be dismissed with costs.
3. The first respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to this Court.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Tasmania
Representation
S K Kay SC, Solicitor-General for the State of Tasmania, with E A Warner for the appellant (instructed by Office of the Solicitor-General (Tas))
B R McTaggart SC with G M O'Rafferty for the first respondent (instructed by Leonard Fernandez Barristers & Solicitors)
S P Donaghue KC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, with E H I Smith and M‑Q T Nguyen for the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, intervening (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
M J Wait SC, Solicitor-General for the State of South Australia, with J F Metzer for the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening (instructed by Crown Solicitor's Office (SA))
A P Berger KC with P M Bindon for the Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory, intervening (instructed by ACT Government Solicitor)
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Attorney-General (Tas) v Casimaty
Statutes – Construction – Statutory consequence of non-compliance with statutory condition of exercise of power – Where s 16(1) of Public Works Committee Act 1914 (Tas) ("Act") stipulates conditions precedent to commencement of public work proposed to be undertaken by Tasmanian Government department or State authority – Conditions precedent that public work referred to and reported upon by Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works ("Committee") – Where Tasmanian Government Department of State Growth proposed new interchange be constructed – Where proposal referred to and reported upon by Committee – Where person with claimed interest in adjacent land brought proceeding against construction company in Supreme Court of Tasmania alleging commencement of road work contravened s 16(1) of Act as different from proposal referred to and reported upon by Committee – Where Attorney-General for Tasmania joined as defendant to proceeding – Where Attorney-General sought order that statement of claim be struck out or proceeding be dismissed because statement of claim failed to disclose cause of action in that no justiciable issue before Court or because adjudication by Court would contravene privilege of Tasmanian Parliament – Whether observance of conditions precedent to commencement of public work stipulated by s 16(1) of Act an obligation enforceable by a court.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate