Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

The Court does not normally make AV recordings for interstate hearings. Given the public interest in this matter, the Court has made this video available even though it is of a lower-quality than we would normally produce.

Cases:

Date: 06 September 2017

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 4h 29m

 

You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.

 

 

 

Terms of use

Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:

(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court.  However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.

(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.

(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.

By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.

 

Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

The Court does not normally make AV recordings for interstate hearings. Given the public interest in this matter, the Court has made this video available even though it is of a lower-quality than we would normally produce.

Cases:

Date: 05 September 2017

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 4h 36m

 

You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.

 

 

 

Terms of use

Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:

(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court.  However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.

(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.

(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.

By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.

 

Pipikos v. Trayans

Case No.

A30/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

16/12/2016 Supreme Court of South Australia (Kourakis CJ, Kelly J & Hinton J)

[2016] SASCFC 138

Catchwords

Contracts – Enforceability – Past performance – Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) s 26 – Memorandum or note of agreement – Part performance – Where appellant alleges parties entered into oral agreement that appellant would pay share of deposit on property in exchange for respondent selling interest in another property – Where trial judge held no oral agreement existed – Where Full Court held agreement existed but unenforceable – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find appellant’s payment of deposit amounted to part performance sufficient to entitle appellant to enforce agreement – Whether Full Court erred in holding handwritten note not sufficient “memorandum or note” of agreement for purposes of s 26 – Whether Full Court erred in holding appellant not entitled to enforce agreement in circumstances where respondent acknowledged agreement – Whether Full Court erred in failing to consider concessions in handwritten note to identify acts of part performance.

Documents*

18/08/2017 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne v/link Adelaide)

31/08/2017 Notice of appeal

22/09/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)

22/09/2017 Chronology (Appellant)

23/10/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)

06/11/2017 Reply

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

Irwin v. The Queen

Case No.

B48/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

3/02/2017 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (M McMurdo P, Gotterson JA, Mullins J)

[2017] QCA 2

Catchwords

Criminal law – Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 23(1)(b) – Where appellant convicted of causing grievous bodily harm – Where appellant gave evidence of pushing complainant – Where Court of Appeal held complainant’s evidence could not rationally be accepted but dismissed appeal on basis it was open to jury to conclude ordinary person “could” reasonably have foreseen possibility of broken hip as result of push – Whether Court of Appeal erred in application of test under s 23(1)(b) by substituting “could” for “would” – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to find verdict unreasonable.

Documents*

18/08/2017 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane)

30/08/2017 Notice of appeal

22/09/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)

22/09/2017 Chronology (Appellant)

13/10/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)

27/10/2017 Reply

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

Rozenblit v. Vainer & Anor

Case No.

M114/2017

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

17/03/2017 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Whelan, Kyrou and McLeish JJA)

[2017] VSCA 52

Catchwords

Procedure – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) r 63.03(3) – Access to courts – Impecuniosity – Where appellant made applications to file and serve amended statement of claim – Where applications refused with costs – Where appellant made further application for leave to cure drafting deficiencies – Where associate judge granted leave to file and serve amended statement of claim but ordered proceeding be stayed under r 63.03(3) until appellant paid interlocutory costs orders – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether in circumstances where appellant unable to meet interlocutory costs orders and no finding appellant conducted litigation in manner amounting to harassment or because of collateral purpose, Court of Appeal erred in failing to find not open to associate judge to make order under r 63.06(3) or exercise inherent jurisdiction to stay proceeding.

Documents*

18/08/2017 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)

28/08/2017 Notice of appeal

22/09/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)

22/09/2017 Chronology (Appellant)

13/10/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)

27/10/2017 Reply

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

Page 4 of 132