Page v. Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd trading as Sydney Seaplanes
Case No.
S60/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
07/09/2021 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bell P, Leeming JA, Emmett AJA)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Jurisdiction – Inconsistency – Where s 11(2) of Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (NSW) ("NSW Jurisdiction Act") enabled party to proceeding in which relevant order was made to apply to NSW Supreme Court for order that proceeding be treated as one in Supreme Court – Where relevant order was one relevantly made in federal court that, whether made before or after commencement of s 11, dismissed, struck out or stayed proceeding relating to State matter for want of jurisdiction – Where, were Supreme Court to make order under s 11(2) then, for purposes of any limitation law, proceeding was deemed to have been brought in Supreme Court on day on which proceeding was first recorded as proceeding in federal court – Where appellant commenced proceedings in Federal Court of Australia seeking damages from respondent in connection with seaplane accident pursuant to provisions of Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) ("Commonwealth Act"), incorporated by s 5 of Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1967 (NSW) – Where Federal Court judge dismissed application for want of jurisdiction – Where s 34 of Commonwealth Act provided that right to damages was extinguished if action not brought within two years after date of accident – Where, following dismissal of Federal Court proceedings, two years after date of accident, appellant sought orders in NSW Supreme Court, pursuant to s 11 of NSW Jurisdiction Act, that Federal Court proceedings be treated as proceeding in NSW Supreme Court – Where primary judge held Federal Court judgment was a relevant order for purposes of s 11 of NSW Jurisdiction Act – Where Court of Appeal held "relevant order" in s 11 of NSW Jurisdiction Act refers to decision "dismissing, striking out or staying proceeding relating to State matter for want of jurisdiction", it does not refer to general want of jurisdiction, rather it refers to want of jurisdiction by reason of constitutionally invalid conferral of jurisdiction as considered in Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511 – Whether order of Federal Court dismissing Federal Court proceeding for want of jurisdiction was "relevant order" within meaning of s 11 of NSW Jurisdiction Act – Whether s 34 of Commonwealth Act a "limitation law" within meaning of s 11 of NSW Jurisdiction Act.
Documents
13/04/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by remote connection)
27/04/2022 Notice of appeal
26/05/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
26/05/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
23/06/2022 Written submissions (Respondent)
05/07/2022 Reply
14/09/2022 Hearing (includes orders by consent) (Full Court, Canberra)
05/09/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
13/09/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
Realestate.com.au Pty Ltd v. Hardingham & Ors
RP Data Pty Limited v. Hardingham & Ors
Case No.
S57 and S58/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/08/2021 Federal Court of Australia (Greenwood, Rares and Jackson JJ)
Catchwords
Copyright – Informal oral agreements – Inferred term – Implied term – Where Hardingham professional photographer and sole director of Real Estate Marketing Australia Pty Ltd ("REMA") – Where REMA commissioned by agencies to take photographs and prepare floor plans of properties for use on platforms concerning marketing of properties for sale or lease – Where retainer of Hardingham and REMA by agencies oral, informal and said nothing of copyright in photographs and floorplans – Where Hardingham entered into "deed of licence" with REMA by which Hardingham granted REMA exclusive licence of copyright subsisting in works originated by him – Where photographs and floor plans provided to each agency were uploaded to platform realestate.com.au operated by Realestate.com.au Pty Ltd ("REA") – Where, to list property on platform, agency had to hold real estate licence and enter subscription agreement which prescribed Terms and Conditions ("T&C") as part of agreement – Where T&C provided that agency granted licence to REA to use and adapt content provided by agency – Where s 15 of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) provided "act shall be deemed to have been done with licence of copyright owner if doing of act was authorized by a licence binding copyright owner – Whether, in informal agreement under which owner of copyright in works intends to grant another person licence to use works, including right to grant sub-licence to third party, it is necessary for licensor and licensee to know precise terms of grant by sub-licence – Whether, for purposes of engaging s 15 of Copyright Act, it is necessary to show what licence binding on owner allowed, and whether infringer acted consistently with licence.
Documents*
12/04/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by remote connection)
26/04/2022 Notices of appeal
31/05/2022 Written submissions (Appellant in S57/2022)
31/05/2022 Chronology (Appellant in S57/2022)
31/05/2022 Written submissions (Appellant in S58/2022)
31/05/2022 Chronology (Appellant in S58/2022)
28/06/2022 Written submissions (Third Respondent in S57/2022)
28/06/2022 Written submissions (Third Respondent in S58/2022)
14/07/2022 Written submissions (First and Second Respondents jointly for both matters)
01/08/2022 Reply (Appellant in S58/2022)
05/08/2022 Reply (Appellant in S57/2022)
11/10/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/10/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant in S57/2022)
11/10/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant in S58/2022)
11/10/2022 Outline of oral argument (First and Second Respondents jointly for both matters)
14/12/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Bosanac v. Commissioner of Taxation & Anor
Case No.
P9/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
31/08/2021 Federal Court of Australia (Kenny, Davies and Thawley JJ)
Catchwords
Equity – Presumption of advancement – Beneficial ownership – Matrimonial home – Where Mr and Ms Bosanac ("Bosanacs") married in 1998 – Where Ms Bosanac offered to purchase matrimonial home for $4.5 million ("Property") – Where Bosanacs applied for two joint loans for $3.5 million and $1 million with inferred purpose to purchase Property – Where Property transferred into sole name of Ms Bosanac – Where Commissioner applied for declaration that Ms Bosanac held 50% of her interest in Property on trust for Mr Bosanac – Where primary judge held presumption of advancement was not rebutted – Where Full Court relied on fact Mr Bosanac borrowed money with Ms Bosanac to purchase Property to found rebuttal of presumption of advancement – Where Full Court relied on statement in The Trustees of the Property of Cummins (a bankrupt) v Cummins (2006) 227 CLR 278, quoting Professor Scott, that where husband and wife purchase matrimonial home, each contributing to purchase price and title is taken by one spouse, it be inferred that it was intended that each spouse should have one-half interest, regardless of amounts contributed – Whether rebuttal of presumption of advancement, applying to purchase by spouses of matrimonial home, can be founded on same facts giving rise to presumption of advancement – Whether, in considering whether presumption of advancement rebutted, court should consider spouses' intentions or any joint intention – Proper approach to rebuttal of presumption of advancement.
Documents
12/04/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by remote connection)
26/04/2022 Notice of appeal
31/05/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
31/05/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
28/06/2022 Written submissions (First Respondent)
19/07/2022 Reply
16/08/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
16/08/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
16/08/2022 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
12/10/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Minister For Immigtration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor V Montgomery
Date: 06 April 2022 , 07 April 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 50m,6h 18m,
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
06 April 2022
07 April 2022
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: Hill V Zuda Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Holly Superannuation Fund & Ors
Date: 05 April 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1 h 22m
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.