Pinpoint · Judgment search

Brock v Minister for Home Affairs

[2010] FCA 1301

Federal Court of Australia · 25 November 2010 · Official judgment

Cited by 10 indexed judgments

All Cited 10

2011: 3 citing judgments 2012: 1 citing judgment 2013: 1 citing judgment 2014: 1 citing judgment 2021: 1 citing judgment 2022: 3 citing judgments 2010 2015 2020 2025
citing judgments per year of which distinguished, doubted, not followed or overruled · line marks the decision

Sort: Oldest first Newest first Most cited

  1. Adamas v Honourable Brendan O'Connor [2011] FCA 948 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 2× · judgment
  2. Brock v Minister for Home Affairs [2011] FCA 1171 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  3. Brock v Minister for Home Affairs [2011] FCAFC 167 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 3× · judgment
  4. Santhirarajah v Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia [2012] FCA 940 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 8× · judgment
  5. Honourable Brendan O'Connor v Adamas [2013] FCAFC 14 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 8× · judgment
  6. Snedden v Minister for Justice for the Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCAFC 156 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 46× · judgment
  7. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v CBW20 [2021] FCAFC 63 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 3× · judgment
  8. Matson v Attorney-General (No 2) [2022] FCA 213 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 7× · judgment
  9. Matson v Attorney-General [2022] FCA 790 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 3× · judgment
  10. Matson v The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia [2022] FCA 839 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment

Tree of authority

Built on

The authorities this case relies on, earliest first, and the authorities those relied on. Open a branch to go further back.

Built upon

Later cases citing this one, in order of decision, and the cases citing them in turn. The most cited are shown at each level.

Authorities cited (23)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1940) 78 CLR 353 Cited cited 2×
  2. R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council [1981] HCA 74 Cited cited 107×
  3. Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond [1986] HCA 7 Cited cited 336×
  4. Zoeller v Federal Republic of Germany [1989] FCA 802 Cited cited 71×
  5. Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77 Applied or followed cited 679×
  6. Harris v Attorney-General (Cth) (1994) 52 FCR 386 Applied or followed cited 75×
  7. Public Prosecutions (Cth), Director of v Kainhofer [1995] HCA 35 Cited cited 87×
  8. Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58 Cited cited 1,391×
  9. De Bruyn v Republic of South Africa [1999] FCA 1344 Cited cited 29×
  10. Oates v Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia [2001] FCA 84 Applied or followed cited 18×
  11. Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2002] 1 SCR 3 Cited cited 13×
  12. Ayan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 196 ALR 332 Cited cited 14×
  13. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme [2003] HCA 56 Cited cited 197×
  14. Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (ACN 007 656 555) (No 6) [2004] FCA 1699 Cited cited 66×
  15. Truong v The Queen [2004] HCA 10 Cited cited 50×
  16. Griffiths v United States of America [2005] FCAFC 34 Cited cited 16×
  17. Vasiljkovic v Commonwealth of Australia [2006] HCA 40 Cited cited 65×
  18. Mokbel v Attorney-General (Cth) (2007) 162 FCR 278 Cited cited 7×
  19. Tervonen v Finland [2007] FCA 2067 Cited cited 7×
  20. Brock v Minister for Justice and Customs [2007] FCA 2091 Applied or followed cited 10×
  21. Rashid v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 25 Applied or followed cited 4×
  22. Williams v Minister for Justice and Customs of the Commonwealth of Australia [2007] FCAFC 33 Cited cited 20×
  23. Brock v Minister for Home Affairs [2008] FCAFC 165 Applied or followed cited 15×
How the citator works

Citations are read from the text of each indexed judgment. A report citation written alongside a neutral citation, such as [2008] HCA 9; (2008) 234 CLR 50, teaches the citator that both name the same case, so later citations by either are counted together.

Treatment is read from the words in the sentence that cites the case: overruled or disapproved; not followed or declined to follow; distinguished or distinguishable; doubted; applied, followed or adopted. Anything else is cited. It is a guide to which judgments to read, not a judicial history: a judgment that discusses a case at length without one of those words is shown as citing it, and one mentioning several cases in a sentence may attach the word to all of them.

Only judgments in this index are counted, mostly the High Court, the Federal Court and New South Wales courts and tribunals since 2006. Earlier cases appear as authorities but their own authorities are unknown, so a tree ends there. Check a treatment by reading the passage before relying on it.

Judgment text is from the Open Australian Legal Corpus (Isaacus, CC BY 4.0) and the courts’ own websites. Each judgment links to its official version: read it before relying on anything here.