Vanderstock & Anor v. The State of Victoria
Case No.
M61/2021
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Duties of excise – Section 90 of Constitution – Exclusive power of Commonwealth Parliament – Where Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Act 2021 (Vic) ("ZLEV Act") defines "ZLEV" to mean any of following not excluded vehicles: (a) electric vehicle; (b) hydrogen vehicle; and (c) plug-in hybrid electric vehicle – Where s 7(1) of ZLEV Act requires registered operator of ZLEV to pay charge for use of ZLEV on specified roads – Whether s 7(1) of ZLEV Act invalid as imposing duty of excise within meaning of s 90 of Constitution.
Documents*
16/09/2021 Writ of Summons
12/05/2022 Draft Special Case
02/06/2022 Order referring special case to the Full Court
28/07/2022 Consent order varying timetable
19/09/2022 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
04/10/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, intervening)
04/10/2022 Written submissions (Australian Trucking Association, seeking leave to be heard as amicus curiae)
24/10/2022 Written submissions (Defendant)
07/11/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, intervening)
07/11/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory, intervening)
07/11/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening)
07/11/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
07/11/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory, intervening)
07/11/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania, intervening)
07/11/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening)
14/11/2022 Reply
14/02/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiffs)
14/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, intervening)
15/02/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
15/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Defendant)
15/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, intervening)
16/02/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
16/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory, intervening)
16/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia, intervening)
16/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
16/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory, intervening)
16/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania, intervening)
16/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening)
17/03/2023 Supplementary written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, intervening)
17/04/2023 Supplementary written submissions (Defendant)
18/10/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v. Allergan Australia Pty Ltd & Anor
Case No.
S79/2022 and S80/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
07/09/2021 Federal Court of Australia (Jagot, Lee and Thawley JJ)
13/10/2021 Federal Court of Australia (Jagot, Lee and Thawley JJ)
Catchwords
Intellectual property – Trade marks – Infringement claim – Section 120 of Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – Where respondents authorised user and owner of registered trade mark for word "BOTOX" – Where respondents claimed appellants used brand name "PROTOX" as trade mark and "PROTOX" deceptively similar to BOTOX trade mark, constituting infringement under s 120(1) of Trade Marks Act – Where respondents claimed appellants used phrase "instant Botox® alternative" as trade mark, which constituted infringement of BOTOX trade mark – Whether appellant infringed BOTOX trade mark by using "instant Botox® alternative" or "PROTOX" – Whether phrase "instant Botox® alternative" deceptively similar to "BOTOX" within meaning of s 120(1) of Trade Marks Act – Whether appellants' use of phrase "instant Botox® alternative" attracts defences under s 122(1)(b)(i) and (d) of Trade Marks Act regarding use in good faith and use not infringing exclusive right of registered owner.
Consumer law – Misleading or deceptive conduct – Where respondent claimed appellants' statement "instant Botox® alternative" constituted representation appellants' Inhibox product would give same results as BOTOX products in contravention of s 18 or s 29(1)(a) of Australian Consumer Law ("ACL"), being Schedule 2 to Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), or Inhibox would achieve or had same performance characteristics, uses and/or benefits as Botox in contravention of s 18 or 29(1)(g) of ACL – Whether appellants' made misleading or false representations contrary to ss 18, 29(1)(a) and 29(1)(g) of ACL.
Documents
13/05/2022 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
26/05/2022 Notices of appeal
01/07/2022 Written submissions (Appellants in S79/2022)
01/07/2022 Chronology (Appellants in S79/2022)
01/07/2022 Written submissions (Appellants in S80/2022)
01/07/2022 Chronology (Appellants in S80/2022)
29/07/2022 Written submissions (Respondents in both matters)
19/08/2022 Reply (Appellants in both matters)
13/10/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/10/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellants in both matters)
13/10/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondents in both matters)
20/10/2022 Further Reply (Appellants in both matters)
01/12/2022 Written submissions (Amicus Curiae)
09/12/2022 Written submissions in Response to Amicus Curiae (Appellants in both matters)
09/12/2022 Written submissions in Response to Amicus Curiae (Respondents in both matters)
14/12/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
14/12/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellants in both matters)
14/12/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondents in both matters)
14/12/2022 Outline of oral argument (Amicus Curiae)
15/03/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Davis v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Ors;
DCM20 v. Secretary of Department of Home Affairs & Anor
Case No.
M32/2022 and S81/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/11/2021 Federal Court of Australia (Kenny, Besanko, Griffiths, Mortimer and Charlesworth JJ)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Judicial review – Non-statutory executive action – Sections 61 and 64 of Constitution – Where s 351(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Act") provided if Minister thinks it in public interest, Minister may substitute decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal under s 349 of Act for decision more favourable to applicant – Where s 351(3) and s 351(7) provided power under s 351(1) be exercised by Minister personally and Minister under no duty to consider whether to exercise power – Where Minister issued guidelines in relation to power conferred by s 351 setting out circumstances in which Department of Home Affairs should refer requests – Where Departmental officers concluded requests for intervention failed to satisfy criteria for referral in guidelines – Whether decision of Departmental officer not to refer to request for Minister to exercise power conferred by s 351(1) amenable to judicial review – Whether decision of Departmental officer affected by legal unreasonableness – Whether remedies available.
Documents*
12/05/2022 Determination - Davis (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
12/05/2022 Determination - DCM20 (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
26/05/2022 Notices of appeal
30/06/2022 Written submissions (Appellant in M32/2022)
30/06/2022 Chronology (Appellant in M32/2022)
30/06/2022 Redacted written submissions (Appellant in S81/2022)
30/06/2022 Chronology (Appellant in S81/2022)
01/08/2022 Written submissions (First Respondent in M32/2022 and Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
01/08/2022 Written submissions (First Respondent in S81/2022 and Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
15/08/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening in M32/2022)
15/08/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening in S81/2022)
15/08/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening in M32/2022)
15/08/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening in S81/2022)
15/08/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening in M32/2022)
15/08/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening in S81/2022)
26/08/2022 Reply (Appellant in M32/2022)
26/08/2022 Reply (Appellant in S81/2022)
19/10/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
19/10/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellants in both matters)
19/10/2022 Outline of oral argument (First Respondents and Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening in both matters)
19/10/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening in M32/2022)
19/10/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening in S81/2022)
20/10/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
20/10/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening in both matters)
20/10/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening in both matters)
12/04/2023 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v. Gavin Morton as liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & Anor
Case No.
B19/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/12/2021 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Middleton & Derrington JJ)
Catchwords
Corporations law – Insolvency – Liquidators – Set-off – Unfair preferences – Mutuality – Where s 533C(1) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provided, relevantly, where mutual credits, mutual debts or other mutual dealings between insolvent company being wound up and person who wants debt or claim admitted against company: (a) account to be taken of what due in respect of mutual dealings; and (b) sum due from one party to be set off against any sum due from other party; and (c) only balance of account admissible to proof against company – Where ss 588FA, 588FE and 588FF of Corporations Act provide for recovery of unfair preferences – Where creditor received payments during relation back period of $190,000 – Where quantum of creditor’s alleged set-off admitted to be $194,727.23 – Whether statutory set-off under s 553C(1) of Corporations Act available to creditor against liquidator in answer to claim for recovery of unfair preference under ss 588FA, 588FE and 588FF of Corporations Act – Proper approach to mutuality in s 533C.
Documents*
12/05/2022 Determination (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
26/05/2022 Notice of appeal
30/06/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
30/06/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
27/07/2022 Written submissions (Respondents)
17/08/2022 Reply
12/10/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/10/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
12/10/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
08/02/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Attorney-General (Cth) v. Huynh & Ors
Case No.
S78/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
08/12/2021 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bathurst CJ, Basten, Gleeson, Leeming & Payne JJA)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Judicial power – Post-appeal application for inquiry into conviction – State courts – Supervisory jurisdiction – Where s 68(1) of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) provided State laws with respect to procedures apply to persons charged with Commonwealth offences where jurisdiction conferred on courts of that State – Where s 68(2) conferred jurisdiction on State courts with respect to criminal proceedings – Where, following conviction for offences against laws of Commonwealth and unsuccessful appeal, Mr Huynh applied to NSW Supreme Court under Pt 7, Div 3 of Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) ("Appeal and Review Act") for review of conviction and sentence – Where NSW Supreme Court judge dismissed application and Mr Huynh sought judicial review of decision – Whether post-appeal inquiry and review procedures in Pt 7, Div 3 of Appeal and Review Act available in relation to conviction or sentence for Commonwealth offence heard in NSW court – Whether power exercised by judge under s 79 of Pt 7, Div 3 of Appeal and Review Act, to consider applications for inquiry into conviction made under s 78, judicial or administrative in nature – Whether ss 78-79 of Appeal and Review Act apply as federal law pursuant to s 68(1) of Judiciary Act in relation to conviction.
Documents*
12/05/2022 Determination (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
25/05/2022 Notice of appeal
30/06/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
30/06/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
02/08/2022 Written submissions (First Respondent)
09/09/2022 Written submissions (proposed amicus curiae)
27/09/2022 Written Reply to the amicus submissions (First Respondent)
07/10/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
20/10/2022 Reply
08/11/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/11/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
08/11/2022 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
08/11/2022 Outline of oral argument (Amici Curiae)
08/11/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
09/11/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/05/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)