Habib v Commonwealth of Australia

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
CourtFull Federal Court (Australia)
Judgment Date2010
Neutral Citation2010-0225 FCA D,[2010] FCAFC 12
Date2010
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
10 cases
  • Abdul-Hakim Belhaj and Another v Rt. Hon. Jack Straw MP and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 20 December 2013
    ...The public policy limitation 90 The Claimants relied on a decision of the High Court of Australia: Habib v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] FCAFC 12. That case concerned a claim by an Australian citizen that Australian officials had committed various torts (misfeasance in public office and ......
  • Belhaj v Straw MP (United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 30 October 2014
    ...from accepting that consequence. (In this regard he might have invoked the statement of Perram J in Habib v. Commonwealth of Australia[2010] FCAFC 12 that ‘Mr Habib's contention is that his torture caused him personal injury, not that it was invalid …’ (at [44]).) However, we consider that ......
  • Belhaj and another v Straw and Others; Rahmatullah v Ministry of Defence and another (No 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 17 January 2017
    ...sense since the effect of the relevant act is determined not by law, but regardless of law. Perram J called it in Habib v Commonwealth [2010] FCAFC 12; (2010) 265 ALR 50 at paras 38 and 43 "a super choice of law rule". In these circumstances, it can, so far as it exists, just as well be und......
  • Australian Communications and Media Authority v Today FM (Sydney) Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 4 March 2015
    ...CLR 478; [2011] HCA 20; Olbers Co Ltd v Commonwealth (2004) 136 FCR 67, upheld on appeal at (2004) 143 FCR 449; Habib v Commonwealth (2010) 183 FCR 62 at 66 [3] per Black CJ, 70–71 [21]–[22] per Perram J. 72 Hocking v Bell (1945) 71 CLR 430 at 500 per Dixon J; [1945] HCA 16; Rejfek v McElro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT