Filippou v. The Queen

Case No.

S59/2015

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

2/05/2013 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (McClellan JA, Fullerton J, S Campbell J)

[2013] NSWCCA 92

Catchwords

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction and sentence – s 23 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – Where the appellant was convicted of murder by a judge sitting alone – Where it was not determined beyond reasonable doubt whether the appellant or one of the deceased brought the murder weapon to the scene – Whether the judge at first instance erred in the application of the test of provocation – Whether as a consequence of this error the Court of Criminal Appeal should have held this to be an error of law requiring the convictions to be quashed – Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in failing to take into account matters mitigating the sentence imposed in respect of the fact that it was not reasonably possible to conclude who brought the murder weapon to the scene.

Short particulars

Documents

13/03/2015 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)

27/03/2015 Notice of appeal

08/04/2015 Written submissions (Appellant)

08/04/2015 Chronology (Appellant)

22/04/2015 Written submissions (Respondent)

29/04/2015 Reply

12/05/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

 

Gnych & Anor v. Polish Club Limited

Case No.

S58/2015

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

17/10/2014 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Meagher JA, Leeming JA, Tobias AJA)

[2014] NSWCA 351

16/09/2014 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Meagher JA, Leeming JA, Tobias AJA)

[2014] NSWCA 321

Catchwords

Real Property – Lease of the core property of a registered club – Where the respondent is a registered club under the Registered Club Act 1976 (NSW) – Where the appellant operated a restaurant from the appellant’s premises – Where a dispute arose and the respondent excluded the appellant’s from the premises – Where the respondent argued that the lease should not be upheld due to a contravention of s 92(1)(c) of the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW) which provides that a licensee must not lease or sub-lease premises except with the approval of the Authority – Whether a lease granted without approval of the Authority should be considered ipso jure void – Whether the Liquor Act excludes the principle that where a person acquires a title by way of a transaction prohibited by statute, the Court will not deprive that person of their title unless that person has to rely upon their own illegal conduct – What conditions can be imposed on the granting of relief to remedy or ameliorate a parties illegal conduct.

Short particulars

Documents

13/03/2015 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)

27/03/2015 Notice of appeal

09/04/2015 Written submissions (Appellants)

09/04/2015 Chronology (Appellants)

22/04/2015 Written submissions (Respondent)

29/04/2015 Reply

05/05/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

 

Astrazeneca AB & Anor v. Apotex Pty Ltd
Astrazeneca AB & Anor v. Watson Pharma Pty Ltd
Astrazeneca AB & Anor v. Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd

Case Nos.

S54/2015, S55/2015 and S56/2015

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

12/08/2014 Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Besanko J, Jessup J, Foster J, Nicholas J, Yates J)

[2014] FCAFC 99

Catchwords

Intellectual property – Patents – Requirements for a valid patent - Novelty – Prior art information – Inventive step – Common general knowledge – ss 7(2), 7(3), 22A and 138(3)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (“Act”) – Where the applicants are the patentees and exclusive licensees of Australian Patent No 051 which relates to a method of treating high cholesterol – Whether the patent was successfully assigned to the appellants - Where there was an order for the revocation of the patent on the basis the claimed invention lacked an inventive step pursuant to ss 7(2) and 7(3) as the invention was obvious in light of common general knowledge and available prior art information – Whether prior art information and common general knowledge can be considered together pursuant to s 7(3) of the Act – Whether when assessing whether an invention is obvious in light of common general knowledge and any s 7(3) information, can sources of prior art information that teach towards an invention as the only avenues available to a skilled person be considered in disregard of any consideration of alternative sources – Whether there can be an order for revocation pursuant to s 138(3)(a) of the Act – Whether s 22A of the Act was applicable in the current case.

Short particulars

Documents

13/03/2015 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)

26/03/2015 Notice of appeal

08/04/2015 Written submissions (Appellants)

08/04/2015 Chronology (Appellants)

22/04/2015 Written submissions (Respondent - Apotex Pty Ltd)

22/04/2015 Written submissions (Respondents - Watson Pharma Pty Ltd & Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd)

29/04/2015 Reply (to Apotex Pty Ltd)

29/04/2015 Reply (to Watson Pharma Pty Ltd & Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd)

04/05/2015 Written submissions (The Commonwealth of Australia seeking leave to intervene)

13/05/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

14/05/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

 

PT Bayan Resources TBK v. BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors

Case No.

P14/2015

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

25/09/2014 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) (McLure P, Buss JA, Murphy JA)

[2014] WASCA 178

Catchwords

Procedure – Judgments and orders – Freezing orders – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to make freezing orders – Order 52A Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia 1971 (WA) („Rules?) – Where the first respondent commenced proceedings against the appellant in the High Court of Singapore – Where no decision has been handed down by the High Court of Singapore in respect of the matter – Where the first respondent commenced proceedings in Western Australia against the appellant for an order to freeze the appellant’s assets in Western Australia – Where no other proceedings aside from the application for freezing orders have been commenced or will be commenced unless the first respondent is successful in its action in the High Court of Singapore – Whether order 52A of the Rules is inconsistent with Pt 2 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) ("Act") for the purpose of s 109 of the Constitution in circumstances where no substantive proceedings apart from the application for the freezing order have been or are to be commenced – Whether order 52A is ultra vires pursuant to s 17 of the Act – Whether freezing orders with respect to a prospective foreign judgment are within the inherent or implied jurisdiction of Australian superior courts.

Documents*

13/03/2015 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)

26/03/2015 Notice of appeal

26/03/2015 Notice of constitutional matter (Appellant)

02/04/2015 Submitting appearance (Second Respondent)

08/04/2015 Written submissions (Appellant)

08/04/2015 Chronology (Appellant)

29/04/2015 Written submissions (First Respondent)

29/04/2015 Written submissions (Third Respondent)

06/05/2015 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)

06/05/2015 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)

06/05/2015 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)

13/05/2015 Reply

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

Police v. Dunstall

Case No.

A5/2015

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

25/07/2014 Supreme Court of South Australia(Kourakis CJ, Gray & Sulan JJ)

[2014] SASCFC 85

Catchwords

Criminal law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Evidence unfair to admit or improperly obtained – Generally – Where the respondent was charged with driving a motor vehicle while there was present in his blood the prescribed concentration of alcohol in contravention of s 47K(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) – Where the respondent was subject to a breath analysis test and two blood samples were taken – Where the blood samples were denatured and unsuitable for analysis – Where the breath analysis evidence was excluded on the basis of unfairness – Whether there is a general judicial discretion to excluded lawfully obtained, non-confessional evidence for reasons of unfairness – If there is a general judicial discretion, what amounts to unfairness to enliven the discretion.

Short particulars

Documents

13/03/2015 Hearing (SLA, Adelaide)

25/03/2015 Notice of appeal

08/04/2015 Written submissions (Appellant)

08/04/2015 Chronology (Appellant)

20/04/2015 Notice of Constitutional Matter (Appellant)

23/04/2015 Written submissions (Respondent)

29/04/2015 Reply

29/04/2015 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)

05/05/2015 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)

06/05/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

 

Page 4 of 74