High Court Judgments of Public Interest
This page provides access to judgments of the High Court in the last 90 days deemed to be of particular public interest.
More information about finding court judgments is available on the judgments section of this website.
It is the responsibility of users of the information contained in these decisions to ensure compliance with conditions or other legal obligations governing access, release, storage and re-publication. See also the guide on statutory provisions that prohibit publication of certain information in certain circumstances. If in doubt you should consult the court that issued the decision(s). Judicial Decisions are presented in PDF format to preserve the integrity of the documents.
The Director of Human Rights Proceedings and Privacy Commissioner intervened in support. HELD: The redacted details were not his personal information. "Personal information" is a legal term, and its definition must be workable across a range of uses within the Act and not be affected by other purposes. The information was not "mixed information" - the redactions simply appeared alongside the information. There was no interference with privacy.
Application for mandatory interim injunction dismissed. No serious question to be tried. Applicant's claim was contractual. Doctrine of prime necessity not engaged. The respondent's decision to impose the ban was consistent with its Conditions of Carriage; it was reached in the exercise of its reasonable discretion. Balance of convenience favours respondent. Overall justice of the case necessitates upholding the ban. Dismissal of interim relief dispositive of claim. Application for transfer of proceeding to another registry also dismissed. Proceeding correctly filed per High Court Rules 2016.
An application to also dismiss the kidnapping charge was declined. Leave was granted to amend the particulars of the kidnapping charge. The kidnapping charge included events that had occurred outside the vehicle. Confinement within the vehicle was not essential to the charge and the defence would not be prejudiced by an amendment.