#gageler

[shitjudgessay]

The Rapidly Receding Concession

GAGELER J: Mr O’Bryan, can I just take you up on this. I interpret it as a concession, that there is some conflict or tension between section 43 and section 85ZZH. For my own part, I cannot see it.

MR O’BRYAN: Yes. I now feel like I should withdraw this concession very rapidly.

SOURCE: Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCATrans 7 (7 February 2019)

[shitjudgessay]

The Third Reason

MR SOLOMON: Can I next ask the Court to go to the 1941 report? Before someone asks me why are we going to the 1941 report - maybe no one was going to – can I tell you? There are two reasons why going to the 1941 report - were you going to ask me, Justice Gageler? I am sorry, your Honour is smiling.

GAGELER J: I might have but you have pre-empted me.

MR SOLOMON: There are two reasons why going to the 1941 report - - -

KIEFEL CJ: Is one of them because Victoria has referred to it?

MR SOLOMON: There might be three reasons, your Honour. But, if there are, that is the third of three.

SOURCE: Re Lambie [2018] HCATrans 7 (6 February 2018)

[shitjudgessay]

My Greatest Victories

GAGELER J: What particular passage in Justice Hayne’s judgment in Edwards v Santos are you referring to?

MR BIRCH: Yes, your Honour; if I could take your Honour to page 426 in the report of Edwards v Santos. Your Honour will see at the very bottom of page 426 his Honour commences to refer in paragraph 11 to section 26. And what happened in this case was that there had been judicial review of matters - - -

GAGELER J: I was in it, I recall.

GAGELER J: Sorry, I should have read the names of counsel.

LATER: [...]

MR BIRCH: We have taken the substance of that from the reasons of Justice Burchett in the One.Tel Case and I note that your Honour was in that as well.

GAGELER J: I think it might be one of my greatest victories, being led, of course.

SOURCE: Woollahra Municipal Council v Minister for Local Government & Ors [2017] HCATrans 244 (29 November 2017)

[shitjudgessay]

Colourblind

GAGELER J: You may not be able to see the light, Mr Hutley, I think.

MR HUTLEY: I thought I was on orange, your Honour, not – has it gone red?

GORDON J: It is on orange, it has five minutes to go.

GAGELER J: I am sorry, you are right.

MR HUTLEY: I thought I was on orange, your Honour.

GAGELER J: You are. I misread the colour.

SOURCE: Adecco (Australia) Pty Ltd v CSR Limited & Anor [2017] HCATrans 235 (17 November 2017)

[shitjudgessay]

The Hypothetisity

MR PRATTEN: Now, in my submissions, I outline those matters – or the issues in the proceedings beginning with “The Hypothetisity” – and I assure your Honour it is a word on Google - - -

GAGELER J: It means having the characteristics of an hypothesis, does it?

MR PRATTEN: Yes. Yes, your Honour.

GAGELER J: It is a very good word.

SOURCE: Pratten v Commonwealth of Australia [2017] HCATrans 121 (9 June 2017)

[shitjudgessay]

I Tender My Friend

GAGELER J: Mr Walker, you have a pretty good point here by the presence of the other case.

MR WALKER: I am sorry, I am - - -

GAGELER J: Your point about the importance - - -

MR WALKER: Yes, yes.

GAGELER J: - - - of the matter is demonstrated by the existence of the other special leave application.

MR WALKER: Yes, I tender my friend, Mr Doyle, as an exhibit as it were. Yes, I did not tell him I would.

SOURCE: Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd; Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Vadasz & Ors [2017] HCATrans 112 (12 May 2017)

[shitjudgessay]

To Be Frank

MR REYNOLDS: If I may be permitted a moment of candour, I have not, to be frank - - -

GAGELER J: I expect more than a moment of candour.

SOURCE: Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCATrans 95 (4 May 2017)

[shitjudgessay]

Tax Cases

MR SLATER: After the evidence had gone and after the argument with the applicant had closed my learned friend in what can only be described as a virtuoso display of forensic pyrotechnics changed his case and concatenated three provisions.

GAGELER J: That is a very colourful description for a tax case really.

MR SLATER: Your Honour, tax cases are often colourful.

SOURCE: Tech Mahindra Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] HCATrans 58 (10 March 2017)