to invalidate an infringement notice where the omission of the place of the contravention could not lead to prejudice – there was no prejudice to X Corp by the omission of the place of the alleged contraventions from the infringement notice – the infringement notice was not invalid for non-compliance with s 104(1)(e)(iii) – declaration refused. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — where X Corp challenged the validity of the infringement notice on the basis that X Corp had been allowed additional time within which to respond to the reporting notice – whether, pursuant to s 56(2)(c)(ii) of the Online Safety Act, the Commissioner had allowed extensions of time to X Corp to respond to the reporting notice – the Commissioner had not allowed X Corp any extension of time to respond. | |
Legislation: | Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 2C
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Bank Integration Act 1991 (Cth) s 12 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) ss 4(1), 50 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 413 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 136 Foreign Corporations (Application of Laws) Act 1989 (Cth) ss 7, 7(3)(a) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 425A, 441A, 441G Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) ss 5, 24, 26, 45, 56, 56(2), 56(2)(c)(ii), 57, 62(1), 162, 163, 163(1), 163(2), 238 Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth) ss 79(2)(a)(i), 79(2)(b)(i), 103(1), 104, 104(1), 104(1)(e)(iii), 104(1)(h), 104(1)(i), 105, 107(1), 107(1)(a), 107(1)(c)–(e) Online Safety (Basic Online Safety Expectations) Determination 2022 (Cth)
Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) s 49(1)(e) Yooralla Society of Victoria Act 1977 (Vic) s 4(1) Canada Corporations Act, RSC 1970, c C-32, s 137
Delaware General Corporation Law ss 259, 261 Nevada Gaming Commission Regulations 8.030, 15.510.1– |
Page:X Corp v eSafety Commissioner (2024, FCA).pdf/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
X Corp v eSafety Commissioner [2024] FCA 1159