In a landmark decision, the High Court has ended over 110 years of denying territory residents constitutional rights. It also granted native title claimants "just terms" compensation for the government acquiring their land, extinguishing traditional rights. A case thread 🧵.

RT @GovCheck6: Peter Garrett told RN Breakfast Australia that Australia has a "good, productive role" to play in international nuclear disa….

Daily reminder that Australia does not have a constitutional right to freedom of speech

RT @GovCheck6: Full Court of the Federal Court rules that a disabled person moving to a better-equipped house is covered by the NDIS scheme….

A man who covered up the Epstein files might pardon a sex offender. Can't wait to see how die-hard MAGAs try to justify this.

RT @jeremy_gans: So, is *this* @highcourtofaus’s last ever message to the 13.3K folks who opted to follow the national court on this site?.

McGinn v HCA [No 4] from this week:

Earlier proceedings, involving allegations of impropriety towards her son at Cranbrook School, were also unsuccessful, also using fraud arguments on appeal. 4 NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeals decisions were made against her, and the High Court denied special leave to appeal.

When her attempt at challenging the validity of the development consent failed in the NSW Land and Environment Court, she appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal and argued that the LEC's "judgment was fraudulently obtained.". She was unsuccessful there too.

This isn't McGinn's first time bringing such proceedings. In 2017, McGinn's neighbour was granted express permission by the council to build a detached house on the neighbour's property. Building dual occupancies required development approval.

Justice Jackman noted that he was not aware of any other proceedings that were in motion. A final hearing is scheduled for 14 August, where the order is expected to be upheld.

This week, Justice Jackman has struck down a further application by McGinn, after she attempted to seek an interlocutory injunction to prevent the order from applying to her while she had other proceedings in the Federal Court.

McGinn has now applied to the Federal Court to overturn the Registrar's order. There, Justice Jackman upheld the Registrar's order. McGinn then unsuccessfully applied to disqualify Justice Jackman for bias. That application was also defeated.

A 'vexatious litigant' order prevents a person from bringing any more legal proceedings without first applying for leave to file from the court.

Escalating the matter further, she went to the High Court to challenge the refusal, naming the Federal Court as the defendant. Justice Edelman denied her application and referred her case to Registrar Griffin for a 'vexatious litigant' order.

When Justice Yates refused to grant that order, as the relevant provision did not apply there, she made an application for disqualification, which sought to remove Justice Yates from the case for bias and "an unwarranted attempt to defraud me.".

She then applied to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. After failing there, she appealed to the Federal Court with a request to seek the AIC's written reasons. At the same time, she also sought an interim suppression order for the proceedings.

McGinn applied to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal for beach of the Australian Consumer Law after terminating her contract with the gym, where she was unsuccessful.

Sophia McGinn, who was denied entry to a pilates class for being late after the gym froze her Fitness First membership for failure to attend it, sued Fitness First for $16,000, eventually ending up in the High Court.

Woman who took gym to Federal Court after being removed from pilates class fails to avoid injunction while challenging High Court decision to label her a 'vexatious litigant' | @6NewsAU @GovCheck6.

RT @6NewsAU: TONIGHT: Tasmania Decides with LIVE election night coverage on 6 News. Watch here from 6pm AEST: http….