D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc & Anor

Case No.

S28/2015

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

5/09/2014 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Dowsett J, Kenny J, Bennett J, Middleton J)

[2014] FCAFC 115

Catchwords

Intellectual Property – Patents – Requirements for a valid patent – Human beings and their biological processes – s 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – Where appellant submitted that the Full Court of the Federal Court erred in holding that each of claims 1 -3 of Australian Patent No 686004 claimed a patentable invention being a manner of manufacture – Australian Patent No 686004 is described as the identification of “a human breast and ovarian cancer disposing gene (BRCA1)” – Whether claims 1 – 3, which relate to isolated nucleic acid, are claims for a manner of manufacture for the purposes of s 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).

Documents*

13/02/2015 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)

27/02/2015 Notice of appeal

10/03/2015 Written submissions (Appellant)

10/03/2015 Chronology (Appellant)

13/03/2015 Summons seeking leave to intervene as amicus curiae (Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia - seeking leave to intervene)

24/03/2015 Written submissions (First Respondent)

31/03/2015 Notice of Constitutional Matter (Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia)

31/03/2015 Written submissions (Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia - seeking leave to intervene)

07/04/2015 Reply

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v. Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd & Ors

Case No.

M18/2015

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

24/10/2014 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Ashley, Redlich & Weinberg JJA)

[2014] VSCA 261

Catchwords

Procedure – Contempt – Disobedience of Court Orders – Where first to sixth respondents sought orders in the Supreme Court of Victoria that appellant be punished for contempt of Court constituted by alleged disobedience in relation to orders made by the Supreme Court of Victoria on 5 April 2013 – Where first to sixth respondents obtained orders requiring the appellant to make discovery of documents in accordance with r 29.07 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) for the purpose of proving appellant’s liability – Whether the Victorian Court of Appeal erred by refusing leave to appeal against the decision to order discovery because of the criminal nature of contempt proceedings – Whether a plaintiff in contempt proceedings can invoke court processes to compel the production of documents by a corporate defendant.

Short Particulars

Documents

13/02/2015 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)

27/02/2015 Notice of appeal

10/03/2015 Written submissions (Appellant)

10/03/2015 Chronology (Appellant)

24/03/2015 Written submissions (First to Sixth Respondents)

24/03/2015 Written submissions (Seventh Respondents)

31/03/2015 Reply

08/04/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

 

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v. WZAPN & Anor

Case No.

M17/2015

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

3/09/2014 Federal Court of Australia (North J)

[2014] FCA 947

Catchwords

Migration – Refugee and humanitarian visas – Definition of refugee – Fear of Persecution – Serious Harm – Whether under s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) a refugee claimant will suffer “serious harm” if detained for a reason mentioned in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 1967 without any need to assess the severity of that detention - Where the respondent is a stateless Faili Kurd – Where respondent claimed a fear of persecution if he was returned to Iran due to his Kurdish ethnicity and stateless personhood – Where the refugee status assessment officer concluded that the applicant was not a refugee within the meaning of the Convention – Where the officer found that whilst respondent would face arbitrary questioning and detention due to his lack of documentation this did not amount to a serious harm within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Federal Court found that the assessment officer had erred by undertaking a qualitative assessment of the detention that was likely to occur if respondent was returned to Iran – Whether a qualitative assessment of the seriousness of the harm suffered by the respondent was required pursuant to s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Short particulars

Documents

13/03/2015 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)

27/02/2015 Notice of appeal

06/03/2015 Submitting appearance (Second Respondent)

06/03/2015 Notice of Contention (First Respondent)

10/03/2015 Written submissions (Appellant)

10/03/2015 Chronology (Appellant)

24/03/2015 Written submissions (First Respondent)

31/03/2015 Reply

15/04/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

 

Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

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

Date: 3 February 2015

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 2h 00m

 

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.

 

McCloy & Ors v. State of New South Wales & Anor

Case No.

S211/2014

Case Information

Catchwords

Statutes – Acts of Parliament – Validity of legislation – Election Funding Expenditure and Disclosure Act 1981 (NSW) – Where the first plaintiff was subjected to compulsory examination pursuant to s 30 of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) by the second defendant concerning the circumstances of a donation made for the benefit of persons including a candidate in connection with the 2011 New South Wales election in breach of the Funding Expenditure and Disclosure Act 1981 (NSW) - Where the plaintiffs claim the provisions that they purportedly breached, Divs 2A and 4A of Pt 6, and s 96E in Div 4 of Pt 6 of the Act infringe the implied freedom of communication regarding political or governmental matters.

Constitutional Law – Operation and Effect of Commonwealth Constitution – Restrictions on Commonwealth and State Legislation – Rights and freedoms implied in Commonwealth Constitution – Freedom of Political Communication – Whether Divs 2A and 4A of Pt 6, and s 96E in Div 4 of Pt 6 of the Funding Expenditure and Disclosure Act 1981 (NSW) infringe the implied freedom of communication regarding political or governmental matters.

Documents*

28/07/2014 Writ of summons

04/08/2014 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiffs)

04/08/2014 Submitting appearance (Second defendant)

17/09/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)

13/10/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)

17/11/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)

19/01/2015 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)

28/01/2015 Special case stated

03/02/2015 Amended Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiffs)

09/02/2015 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)

09/02/2015 Chronology

02/03/2015 Written submissions (First defendant)

10/03/2015 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)

10/03/2015 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)

10/03/2015 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)

10/03/2015 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)

10/03/2015 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)

16/03/2015 Reply (Plaintiffs)

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

Page 4 of 72