Page:X Corp v eSafety Commissioner (2024, FCA).pdf/2

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

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)


Magistrates' Court Act 1989 (Vic) ss 50, 92

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


Companies Act 1993 (NZ) s 219

Delaware General Corporation Law ss 259, 261

Nevada Gaming Commission Regulations 8.030, 15.510.1–


X Corp v eSafety Commissioner [2024] FCA 1159