Cook (A Pseudonym) v. The King
Case No.
S158/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/12/2022 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Beech-Jones CJ at CL; Adamson J; Bellew J)
Catchwords
Evidence – Admissibility of evidence about complainant’s sexual experience or activity – Temporal limitations – Where appellant convicted of sexual offences against child – Where issue arose prior to trial regarding admissibility of evidence relating to complainant’s complaint of sexual assault by another member of her family – Where common ground evidence of other offences probative and appellant sought to adduce the evidence in their defence – Where s 293 of Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) provides evidence of sexual experience inadmissible subject to exceptions – Where trial judge ruled evidence of other offences inadmissible in appellant’s trial – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in constructing s 293(4) – Whether Court erred in holding permissible to mislead jury by cross-examination in order to attempt to counteract unfairness occasioned by exclusion of s 293 evidence – Whether Court erred in ordering appellant be retried – Whether Court erred in refusing to stay proceedings.
Documents*
21/11/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
05/12/2023 Notice of appeal
30/01/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
25/01/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
20/02/2023 Written submissions (Respondent)
12/03/2023 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
HBSY Pty Ltd ACN 151 894 049 v. Lewis & Anor
Case No.
Case no S106/2023
Case Information
Catchwords
Courts – Jurisdiction – Cross-vesting – State court invested with federal jurisdiction – Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) ss 7(3), 7(5) – Where dispute arose in respect of first defendant’s late aunt’s estate – Where first defendant’s brother director of Lewis Securities Ltd – Where estate’s largest asset money owing to it by Sir Moses Montefiore Jewish Home (“Montefiore sum”) – Where brother deposited Montefiore Sum with Lewis Securities – Where Lewis Securities entered liquidation and Montefiore sum lost – Where brother liable to estate and declared bankrupt – Where plaintiff purchased various assets from trustee in bankruptcy including interest in residue of estate – Where brother discharged from bankruptcy – Where plaintiff sought orders in Supreme Court revoking letters of administration granted to first defendant, or alternatively order that he be replaced as trustee – Where first defendant cross-claimed seeking declarations that plaintiff not entitled to be paid brother’s share of estate – Where plaintiff unsuccessful at first-instance – Where on 27 July 2022, plaintiff filed and served notice of intention to appeal to New South Wales Court of Appeal – Where on 31 August 2022, plaintiff’s legal advisers came to view appeal would concern matter arising under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and would therefore have to be brought in Full Federal Court – Where plaintiff sought extension of time to appeal from judgment of Supreme Court of New South Wales to Full Court of Federal Court of Australia – Where Full Court held s 7(5) of Cross-Vesting Act did not apply and suggested plaintiff may wish to revive process it had commenced in Court of Appeal – Where plaintiff seeks writ of mandamus requiring Full Court to determine substantive appeal – Whether Full Court has jurisdiction to hear appeal – Proper construction of s 7(5) of Cross-Vesting Act.
Documents*
30/08/2023 Application for Constitutional Writ
22/11/2023 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video-connection)
12/12/2023 Order referring matter to the Full Court (Single Justice, 22/11/2023)
08/02/2024 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
08/02/2024 Chronology (Plaintiff)
22/02/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (intervening))
07/03/2024 Written submissions (First Defendant)
28/03/2024 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (ACN 009 686 097) v. Williams & Anor
Williams & Anor v. Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited
(ACN 009 686 097)
Case No.
Case no S155/2023; Case no S157/2023
Related Case
S25/2024 - Capic v. Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd ACN 004 116 223
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
27 March 2023 Federal Court of Australia (Moshinsky, Colvin & Stewart JJ)
Catchwords
Trade Practices – Consumer law – Measure of damages for failure to comply with guarantee of acceptable quality – Where representative proceedings concerned 264,170 Toyota motor vehicles with diesel engines sold to Australian consumers – Where vehicles supplied with defective diesel particulate filter system – Where appellant introduced effective solution known as “2020 field fix” – Where 2020 field fix effective in remedying defect and its consequences in all relevant vehicles – Where primary judge found on “common sense approach” breach of s 54 Australian Consumer Law ("ACL") resulted in reduction in value of all vehicles by 17.5% – Where primary judge ordered reduction in damages under s 272(1)(a) of ACL be awarded to all group members who had not opted out, had not received 2020 field fix and first consumer had not sold it during relevant period – Where Full Court set aside order awarding reduction in value damages and reassessed reduction in value to be 10% before taking into account availability of 2020 field fix – Whether Full Court erred in finding damages for reduction in value recoverable when no ongoing reduction in value due to availability of free repair - Whether Full Court erred in failing to find damages for breach of guarantee of acceptable quality always to be assessed by reference to true value of goods at time of supply - Whether assessment of damages imports discretion exercisable under standard of appropriateness to assess reduction in value of goods at some later time or make adjustment downwards to reflect future event unknown at date of supply.
Documents*
17/11/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
30/11/2023 Notice of appeal (S155/2023 Toyota Motor Corporation Australia)
01/12/2023 Notice of appeal (S157/2023 Williams)
06/02/2024 Written submissions (Williams Appellants)
06/02/2024 Chronology (Williams Appellants)
26/02/2024 Written submissions (Toyota Appellants)
26/02/2024 Chronology (Toyota Appellants)
08/03/2024 Reply (Williams Appellants)
15/03/2024 Reply (Toyota Appellants)
10/04/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (Williams Appellants)
10/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (Toyota Appellants)
11/04/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
CBI Constructors Pty Ltd & Anor v. Chevron Australia Pty Ltd
Case No.
Case no P22/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/01/2023 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) (Quinlan CJ, Murphy JA, Bleby AJA)
Catchwords
Arbitration – Bifurcation of proceedings – Admissibility/jurisdiction dichotomy – Functus officio – Standard of supervisory court review – Where arbitration proceedings arose from contract under which appellants required to provide staff to carry out work at construction sites and respondent required to reimburse appellants for costs of providing staff – Where arbitral tribunal bifurcated proceedings principally on basis that first hearing would deal with liability and second hearing would deal with quantum – Where following first interim award appellants included additional pleading in repleaded case as to staff costs calculation (“Contract Criteria Case”) – Where respondent objected to Contract Criteria Case on basis of res judicata, issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel and Tribunal functus officio in respect of liability – Where Tribunal in second interim award declared appellants not prevented from advancing Contract Criteria Case by any estoppels and Tribunal not functus officio in respect of Contract Criteria Case – Where respondent applied to set aside second interim award pursuant to s 34(2)(a)(iii) of Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA)on ground beyond scope of parties’ submission to arbitration – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred finding arbitral tribunal functus officio with respect to Contract Criteria Case for purpose of s 34(2)(a)(iii) – Whether Court erred finding standard of supervisory court’s review of scope of parties’ submission to arbitration in application to set aside arbitral award under s 34(2)(a)(iii) is de novo review in which supervisory court applies "correctness" standard of intervention.
Documents*
17/11/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
30/11/2023 Notice of appeal
19/01/2024 Written submissions (Appellants)
19/01/2024 Chronology (Appellants)
16/02/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
08/03/2024 Reply
16/04/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
16/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
16/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v. Kola
Case No.
A21/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/05/2023 Supreme Court of South Australia (Kourakis CJ, Nicholson J, Stein J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Drug offences – Scope of conspiracy – Misdirection and non-direction – Where respondent charged with conspiring to import commercial quantity of border controlled drug contrary to ss 1.5(1) and 307.1(1) of Criminal Code (Cth) – Where Crown case respondent agreed with others to conduct being engaged in, which if successful, would result in commercial quantity of cocaine being imported from Panama to Australia – Where no direct evidence of quantity of cocaine agreed to import – Where Crown relied on inferences to support case amount of cocaine to be imported 2kg or more – Where trial judge directed jury elements to be proven beyond reasonable doubt included substance imported pursuant to agreement commercial quantity – Where approach to directing juries about elements of conspiracy offence differs in Victoria, New South Wales and present South Australian case – Whether Court of Appeal erred concluding trial judge failed to direct element of offence of conspiracy to import commercial quantity of border controlled drug was accused had agreed with others to engage in conduct which, if executed, would have resulted in importation of commercial quantity of cocaine – Whether Court concluding trial judge’s directions permitted respondent to be convicted if jury satisfied acts engaged in by conspirators would have resulted in importation of commercial quantity of cocaine, even if not in agreement entered – Whether Court erred holding jury should have been directed whether conspiratorial agreement concerned commercial quantity of cocaine to be determined having regard only to circumstances known, or believed, by conspirators to exist such that evidence of what in fact occurred irrelevant to existence of alleged agreement.
Documents
17/11/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
23/11/2023 Notice of appeal
15/12/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
15/12/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
22/01/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
31/01/2024 Reply
15/02/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
15/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
15/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
17/04/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)