Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

Case: Maxwell v. Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd

Date: 06 August 2014

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 1h 20m

 

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

Case: Cantarella Bros Pty Limited v. Modena Trading Pty Limited

Date: 05 August 2014

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 3h 39m

 

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.

 

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia & Ors v. Queensland Rail & Anor

Case No.

B63/2013

Case Information

Catchwords

Constitutional law – Commonwealth Constitution, ss 51(xx) and 109 – Employees who are members of ten unions previously employed by Queensland Rail Limited were transferred to Queensland Rail – Queensland Government intended to implement  New Generation Rolling Stock project (“NGR project”) – Unions informed Queensland Rail of their concerns for potential impact of NGR project and sought discussions pursuant to cl 22 of Rollingstock Agreement – Queensland Rail did not consider itself bound by Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FW Act”) but instead bound by Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Qld) (“IR Act”) and by reason of s 691C of IR Act, considered Rollingstock Agreement of no effect – Unions informed Queensland Rail of desire to pursue negotiations for new enterprise agreement to replace Traincrew Agreement in accordance with FW Act – New enterprise agreement certified pursuant to IR Act – Whether Queensland Rail is corporation within meaning of s 51(xx) of Constitution – Whether Queensland Rail is trading corporation within meaning of s 51(xx) of Constitution – Whether FW Act applies to Queensland Rail and its employees by operation of s 109 of Constitution to exclusion of Queensland Rail Transit Authority Act 2013 (Qld) or IR Act or both.

Documents*

12/11/2013 Writ of summons

26/11/2013 Submitting appearance (Second Defendant)

09/12/2013 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiffs)

27/02/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)

05/06/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)

28/07/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)

07/08/2014 Special case stated

26/08/2014 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)

03/09/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)

15/09/2014 Written submissions (First Defendant)

29/09/2014 Reply

 

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

 CPCF v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor

 Case No.

 S169/2014

 Case Information

Catchwords

Migration – Power to detain – Maritime Powers Act 2013 (Cth) (“Act”) – Plaintiff, along with 156 other persons, was passenger on Indian vessel bound for Christmas Island – Plaintiff claimed refugee status within meaning of Art 1 of Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and that he was person in respect of whom Australia owed non-refoulement obligations – Indian vessel was intercepted in Australia’s contiguous zone – Maritime officers implemented decision of National Security Committee of Cabinet to return Indian vessel to India – Whether s 72(4) of Act authorised maritime officers to prevent plaintiff from entering Australia or detain plaintiff for purpose of taking him to India – Whether power under Act was subject to obligation to give plaintiff opportunity to be heard about the exercise of power – Whether obligation breached.

 

Constitutional law – Executive power – Whether non-statutory executive power of Commonwealth authorised Commonwealth officers to prevent plaintiff from entering Australia or detain plaintiff for purposes of taking him to India – Whether non-statutory executive power was subject to obligation to give plaintiff opportunity to be heard about the exercise of power – Whether obligation breached.

 

 Documents* 

07/07/2014 Writ of summons

07/07/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Sydney)

08/07/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Sydney)

18/07/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Sydney)

22/07/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Sydney)

23/07/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Sydney)

23/07/2014 Case Stated

28/07/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Sydney)

14/08/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Sydney)

21/08/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Sydney)

11/09/2014 Written submissions (Plaintiff)

11/09/2014 Chronology (Plaintiff)

11/09/2014 Written submissions (Australian Human Rights Commission seeking leave to intervene)

15/09/2014 Written submissions (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae)

30/09/2014 Written submissions (Defendant)

08/10/2014 Reply

14/10/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

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

Kuczborski v. The State of Queensland

 

Case No.

 B14/2014

 Case Information

Catchwords

Constitutional law - Limitation on State legislative power - Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Qld), s 7 - Criminal Code (Qld), ss 60A, 60B(1) and 60C - Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 16(3A) - Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), ss 12(1B), 13(1B), 41(1)(c), 65A, 267A, 344AA, 350A - Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), ss 29(1A), 32, 40(2A) - Liquor Act 1992 (Qld), ss 173EB and 173EC - Whether provisions are invalid on ground that they infringe an implied freedom of association.

Constitutional law - Limitation on State legislative power - Criminal Code (Qld), ss 60A, 60B(1) and 60C - Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), ss 12(1B), 13(1B), 41(1)(c), 65A, 267A, 344AA, 350A - Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), ss 29(1A), 32, 40(2A) - Liquor Act 1992 (Qld), ss 173EB and 173EC - Whether provisions are invalid on ground that they infringe implied freedom of communication on government and political matters.

Constitutional law - Limitation on State legislative power - Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Qld), s 7 - Criminal Code (Qld), ss 60A, 60B(1) and 60C - Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 16(3A) - Whether provisions are invalid on ground that they infringe Kable principle.

Constitutional law - Limitation on State legislative power - Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Qld), s 7 - Criminal Code (Qld), s 60A - Liquor Act 1992 (Qld), ss 173EB and 173EC - Whether provisions are invalid under s 109 of Constitution because inconsistent with Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) or Copyright Act 1986 (Cth).

Standing - Whether plaintiff has standing to seek a declaration that provisions are invalid.

Remedies - Whether relief sought by plaintiff is hypothetical.

Short particulars

Documents

19/03/2014 Writ of summons

25/03/2014 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)

12/05/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)

02/06/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)

23/06/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)

23/06/2014 Special case stated

27/06/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra v/link Brisbane)

16/07/2014 Written submissions (Plaintiff)

16/07/2014 Chronology

22/07/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Brisbane)

23/07/2014 Amended Special Case

23/07/2014 Amended written submissions (Plaintiff)

11/08/2014 Written submissions (Defendant)

15/08/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)

15/08/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)

15/08/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory intervening)

15/08/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)

15/08/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)

15/08/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)

22/08/2014 Reply

02/09/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane) (Audio-visual recording)

03/09/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane) (Audio-visual recording)

 

Page 4 of 60