Pearson v. Commonwealth of Australia & Ors

Case No.

S126/2023

Case Information

Catchwords

TBC

Documents*

10/10/2023 Application for Constitutional or other writs

13/02/2024 Special Case

07/03/2024 Order referring special case to the Full Court

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only. 

State of New South Wales v. Wojciechowska & Ors

Case No.

S39/2024

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

17/08/2023 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Mitchelmore JA, Kirk JA, Griffiths AJA)

[2023] NSWCA 191

Catchwords

Constitutional law – Judicial Power of Commonwealth – Where first respondent resided in Tasmania – Where first respondent commenced various proceedings in New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") against third and fourth respondents, emanations of State of New South Wales – Where first respondent sought review of various decisions and conduct under Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) ("GIPA Act") and Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) ("PPIP Act") – Where claim included claim for damages under s 52(2)(a) PPIP Act – Where first respondent challenged jurisdiction of Tribunal on basis functions performed by Tribunal when determining administrative review applications under GIPA Act and PPIP Act involved exercise of judicial power – Where Court of Appeal held determining administrative review under GIPA Act did not involve exercise of judicial power – Where Court of Appeal held determination of application for damages under s 55(2)(a) of PPIP Act brought by out-of-state resident would involve Tribunal exercising judicial power of Commonwealth – Whether Burns v Corbett (2018) 265 CLR 304applies to exercise of non-judicial power – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Tribunal, when performing at instance of out-of-State resident claiming damages review of public sector agency conduct under Pt 5 of PPIP Act and Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) exercises Commonwealth judicial power.

Courts – State tribunals – Jurisdiction.

Documents*

07/03/2024 Determination

21/03/2024 Notice of appeal

22/03/2024 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by remote connection)

24/04/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)

24/04/2024 Chronology (Appellant)

22/05/2024 Written submissions (Respondents)

12/06/2024 Reply

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only. 

The King v. ZT

Case No.

S38/2024

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

29/09/2023 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Kirk JA, Fagan J, Sweeney J)

[2023] NSWCCA 241

Catchwords

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Unreasonable verdict – Joint criminal enterprise – Where respondent found guilty at trial of party to murder – Where case against him founded upon series of admissions made as to involvement in killing – Where respondent's accounts numerous and inconsistent – Where respondent successfully appealed conviction to Court of Criminal Appeal on ground jury's verdict unreasonable – Where Court of Criminal Appeal majority found admissions not sufficiently reliable to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal majority erred in concluding jury enjoyed no relevant or significant advantage over appellate court – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal majority erred in its application of test in M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.

Documents*

07/03/2024 Determination

21/03/2024 Notice of appeal

11/04/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)

24/04/2024 Chronology (Appellant)

22/05/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)

12/06/2024 Reply

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only. 

Steven Moore (a pseudonym) v. The King

Case No.

M23/2024

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

28/09/2023 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Kennedy, Walker, Macaulay JJA)

[2023] VSCA 236

Catchwords

Evidence – Criminal trial – Hearsay – Exclusion of prejudicial evidence – Where appellant charged with seven violent offences and pleaded not guilty – Where appellant accepted he was at complainant's house and engaged in argument, but denied any violence on his part – Where Crown case relies in large part on complainant's account – Where complainant passed away in circumstances unconnected to allegations – Where Crown relied on hearsay rule in s 65 of Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) to adduce representations made by complainant – Where prosecution's notice of intention to adduce hearsay evidence referred to large number of representations by complainant to various people – Where appellant objected to admission of evidence – Where trial judge ruled 67 of 70 previous representations admissible – Where appellant unsuccessfully appealed interlocutory decision to Court of Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal applied wrong standard of review on interlocutory appeal from ruling on admissibility of evidence under s 137 of Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in assessing "danger of unfair prejudice to the accused" of admitting evidence.

Documents*

07/03/2024 Determination

20/03/2024 Notice of appeal

18/04/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)

18/04/2024 Chronology (Appellant)

09/05/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)

16/05/2024 Reply

 

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only. 

Elisha v. Vision Australia Limited

Case No.

M22/2024

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

28/11/2023 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (McLeish, Kennedy, Macaulay JJ)

[2023] VSCA 288 and [2023] VSCA 265

Catchwords

Damages – Contract – Breach – Psychiatric injury – Where appellant entered employment contract with respondent – Where during hotel stay while performing his work duties, appellant involved in incident with hotel proprietor – Where appellant's employment terminated for alleged "serious misconduct" – Where appellant developed major depressive disorder, which trial judge found caused by dismissal – Where appellant sued for damages, claiming alleged breaches of due process provision contained in clause 47.5 of Vision Australia Unified Enterprise Agreement 2013 and respondent's "disciplinary procedure" – Where appellant claimed respondent's duty of care extended to discipline and termination procedures – Where at trial, appellant succeeded in contract and failed in negligence – Where Court of Appeal held respondent did not owe alleged duty of care, and affirmed trial judge's finding in respect of contract claim – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding damages for psychiatric injury suffered by appellant not recoverable for breach of contract.

Tort – Negligence – Duty of care owed by employers – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding respondent did not owe duty to take reasonable care to avoid injury to appellant in its implementation of processes leading to and resulting in termination of his employment.

Documents*

07/03/2024 Determination

20/03/2024 Notice of appeal

24/04/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)

24/04/2024 Chronology (Appellant)

22/05/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)

12/06/2024 Reply

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only. 

  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  7 
  •  8 
  •  9 
  •  10 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »
Page 1 of 257