Language – Swingeing

Often associated with a criticism or complaint, ‘swingeing’ is defined by the Macquarie Dictionary as ‘forcible, strong’ and ‘great, large’ and by the Oxford Compact, as ‘severe or otherwise extreme’.

The linguistics website linguistics.stackexchange.com records that a common collocation for swingeing is with interest rate cuts: increases are ‘hikes’ and cuts are ‘swingeing’ (see https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/44101/we-typically-say-rates-are-hiked-and-cuts-are-swingeing-is-there-a-term-to)

The artist Richard Hamilton’s 1967 work ‘Swingeing London 67’ included many works deriving from a photograph that showed the moment that Mick Jagger and Robert Fraser (an art dealer and Hamilton’s friend) were arrested on suspicion of possessing drugs at a party at Kieth Richard’s farmhouse in Sussex: see https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/feb/05/the-great-british-art-tour-mick-jagger-richard-hamilton-swingeing-london . The work is described by the Metropolitan Museum of Art as follows (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/375837) :

Hamilton’s art dealer, Robert Fraser, and members of the rock group the Rolling Stones were arrested in 1967 by the London police for drug possession. The following year, Hamilton published several prints about the press coverage of the events. Swingeing London 67 is an assemblage of clippings compiled by Fraser’s gallery and laid out to mimic the composition of a page of newsprint. He selected headlines that focused on trivial details, such as the men’s meals, cars, and clothing, rather than on the court proceedings and sentences. Pieces of wrapping paper from an incense packet that appear between the cuttings reference the incense sticks that authorities encountered during 
their raid and alleged were meant to disguise the smell of cannabis.

Closer to home (and practice), it has been used in many judicial decisions:

• Comcare v Banerji (2019) 267 CLR 373; [2019] HCA 23 at [163] (Edelman J) (emphasis added, citations omitted):

In Clubb v Edwards, this Court unanimously upheld the validity of Tasmanian legislation imposing swingeing restrictions upon political communication by persons seeking to protest in relation to pregnancy terminations.

• Sims v Commonwealth of Australia (2022) 109 NSWLR 546; [2022] NSWCA 194 at [52]-[53] (Bell CJ) (emphasis added, citations omitted):

Twentieth century scholars including Jackson, Winfield and Stoljar have wrestled with the rather amorphous body of case law that was once gathered under the heading of the law of quasi-contract.

A feature of Anglo-Australian jurisprudence and academic scholarship over the last 50 years has been vigorous debate between academics, both inter se as well as with jurists (writing both judicially and extra-judicially), as to whether this vast body of case law can be collectively and coherently analysed under a general organising or overarching theory known variously as the law of restitution or the law of unjust enrichment. The literature is vast and the dialectic has been, at times, robust with Professor Birks in particular contending for a unified account. Some of the history is traced by French CJ in Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Limited v Hills Industries Limited and the observation of the plurality that “the concept of unjust enrichment is not the basis of restitutionary relief in Australian law” has been the subject of swingeing criticism by the leading Australian text on the subject.

• Farrell v Super Retail Group Limited (Confidentiality Applications) [2024] FCA 954 at [38] (Lee J):

As to the proposed suppression order in the First SRG IA, I expressed concern about its swingeing nature and the proposed redaction of nearly the entirety of the statement of claim. In response, Mr Follett informed me that prayer 3 was no longer pressed and what was now sought to be suppressed was essentially that contained in SOC [21], that is, the terms of the Alleged 6 May Agreement (Terms Information).

and, interestingly, in the catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – open justice principles and their importance – suppression orders – Pt VAA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – where parties sought interim and final non-publication orders – pseudonym orders – observations as to frequent practice of parties seeking  swingeing  confidentiality orders – where order must be necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice – where SRG contends the disclosure of the terms of settlement deed would operate as a specific and general disincentive to non-curial resolution – where extant and related Fair Work Commission proceedings – where suppression order sought by SRG not necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice – limited suppression order made pending application for leave to appeal – orders made

• Palmer v McGowan (No 5) (2022) 404 ALR 621; [2022] FCA 893 at [26] (Lee J):

Mr Palmer was angry and upset about the Amendment Act. That is hardly surprising. No doubt he thought he had wide scope in attacking its swingeing immunities. But his evidence he was genuinely concerned about his health and safety was so unbelievable that it had the effect of seriously undermining the persuasiveness of his evidence as to his subjective feelings generally.