The King v. ZT
Case No.
S38/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/09/2023 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Kirk JA, Fagan J, Sweeney J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Unreasonable verdict – Joint criminal enterprise – Where respondent found guilty at trial of party to murder – Where case against him founded upon series of admissions made as to involvement in killing – Where respondent's accounts numerous and inconsistent – Where respondent successfully appealed conviction to Court of Criminal Appeal on ground jury's verdict unreasonable – Where Court of Criminal Appeal majority found admissions not sufficiently reliable to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal majority erred in concluding jury enjoyed no relevant or significant advantage over appellate court – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal majority erred in its application of test in M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.
Documents*
07/03/2024 Determination
21/03/2024 Notice of appeal
02/05/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/05/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
30/05/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
20/06/2024 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Steven Moore (a pseudonym) v. The King
Case No.
M23/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/09/2023 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Kennedy, Walker, Macaulay JJA)
Catchwords
Evidence – Criminal trial – Hearsay – Exclusion of prejudicial evidence – Where appellant charged with seven violent offences and pleaded not guilty – Where appellant accepted he was at complainant's house and engaged in argument, but denied any violence on his part – Where Crown case relies in large part on complainant's account – Where complainant passed away in circumstances unconnected to allegations – Where Crown relied on hearsay rule in s 65 of Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) to adduce representations made by complainant – Where prosecution's notice of intention to adduce hearsay evidence referred to large number of representations by complainant to various people – Where appellant objected to admission of evidence – Where trial judge ruled 67 of 70 previous representations admissible – Where appellant unsuccessfully appealed interlocutory decision to Court of Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal applied wrong standard of review on interlocutory appeal from ruling on admissibility of evidence under s 137 of Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in assessing "danger of unfair prejudice to the accused" of admitting evidence.
Documents*
07/03/2024 Determination
20/03/2024 Notice of appeal
18/04/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
18/04/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
09/05/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
16/05/2024 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Elisha v. Vision Australia Limited
Case No.
M22/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/11/2023 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (McLeish, Kennedy, Macaulay JJ)
[2023] VSCA 288 and [2023] VSCA 265
Catchwords
Damages – Contract – Breach – Psychiatric injury – Where appellant entered employment contract with respondent – Where during hotel stay while performing his work duties, appellant involved in incident with hotel proprietor – Where appellant's employment terminated for alleged "serious misconduct" – Where appellant developed major depressive disorder, which trial judge found caused by dismissal – Where appellant sued for damages, claiming alleged breaches of due process provision contained in clause 47.5 of Vision Australia Unified Enterprise Agreement 2013 and respondent's "disciplinary procedure" – Where appellant claimed respondent's duty of care extended to discipline and termination procedures – Where at trial, appellant succeeded in contract and failed in negligence – Where Court of Appeal held respondent did not owe alleged duty of care, and affirmed trial judge's finding in respect of contract claim – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding damages for psychiatric injury suffered by appellant not recoverable for breach of contract.
Tort – Negligence – Duty of care owed by employers – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding respondent did not owe duty to take reasonable care to avoid injury to appellant in its implementation of processes leading to and resulting in termination of his employment.
Documents*
07/03/2024 Determination
20/03/2024 Notice of appeal
22/04/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
22/04/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
22/05/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
12/06/2024 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Bogan & Anor v. The Estate of Peter John Smedley (Deceased) & Ors
Case No.
M21/2024
Case Information
Catchwords
Practice and Procedure – Transfer of proceedings – Group costs order – Where Victoria legislated to permit costs orders calculated as percentage of judgment or settlement in representative proceedings – Where provision unique to Victoria – Where appellants commenced representative proceedings in Supreme Court of Victoria against respondents – Where fifth respondent applied to transfer proceedings to Supreme Court of NSW under s 1337H of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Where appellants applied for group costs order ("GCO") under s 33ZDA of Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) – Where Supreme Court directed GCO application be determined before transfer application, and later made GCO – Where fifth respondent's first removal application to High Court dismissed – Where fifth respondent referred transfer application to Victorian Court of Appeal for provision of reasons without final orders – Where Court of Appeal held proceedings should not be transferred to Supreme Court of NSW – Where fifth respondent successfully made second removal application to High Court – Whether GCO made under s 33ZDA of Supreme Court Act relevant in deciding whether to transfer proceedings to another court under s 1337H(2) of Corporations Act – Whether GCO will remain in force if proceedings are transferred to Supreme Court of NSW – Whether Supreme Court of NSW would have power to vary or revoke GCO if proceedings transferred – Whether proceedings should be transferred to Supreme Court of NSW.
Documents*
07/03/2024 Determination
18/03/2024 Cause Removed
18/04/2024 Written submissions (Fifth Respondent)
18/04/2024 Chronology (Fifth Respondent)
24/04/2024 Written submissions (First to Fourth Respondents)
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
JZQQ v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor
Case No.
B15/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/10/2023 Federal Court of Australia (Katzmann, Derrington, Kennett JJ)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Direction principle – Where appellant born in Somalia and granted refugee status in New Zealand – Where appellant convicted of intentionally causing injury and making threats to kill and sentenced to aggregate term of 15 months imprisonment – Where appellant's Australian visa cancelled on basis he failed character test in s 501 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("Tribunal") affirmed non-revocation decision and concluded appellant did not pass character test – Where appellant lodged originating motion in Federal Court seeking judicial review – Where appellant released from immigration detention following Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 295 FCR 177 ("Pearson") – Where Full Federal Court in Pearson held aggregate sentence does not fall within s 501(7)(c) – Where appellant amended originating application raising Pearson ground – Where Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Act 2023 (Cth) ("Amending Act") amended Migration Act with retrospective effect to treat aggregate sentence as equivalent to sentence for single offence for purposes of s 501(7)(c) – Where appellant re-detained under Amending Act – Where Full Court held Tribunal's decision and Amending Act valid – Whether Amending Act beyond legislative power of Commonwealth Parliament by directing courts as to conclusions they should reach in exercise of their jurisdiction – Whether Amending Act denies court exercising jurisdiction under, or derived from, s 75(v) of Constitution, ability to enforce limits which Parliament has expressly or impliedly set on decision-making power.
Immigration – Visas – Cancellation – Application for judicial review –
– Whether decision made by Tribunal under s 43 of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) capable of meeting Amending Act’s description of decision made "under" Migration Act – Whether appellant's aggregate sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment is "term of imprisonment of 12 months or more" within meaning of s 501(7)(c) of Migration Act 1958.
Documents*
07/03/2024 Determination
15/03/2024 Notice of appeal
24/04/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/04/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
22/05/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
12/06/2024 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.