Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Fairbairn v Radecki
Date: 08 March 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 3h 27m
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.
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of Patents
Case No.
S40/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
03/06/2021 Federal Court of Australia (Middleton, Perram & Nicholas JJ)
Catchwords
Intellectual property – Patents – Manner of manufacture – Electronic gaming machine ("EGM") – Where ss 18(1)(a) and 18(1A)(a) of Patents Act 1990 (Cth) provide invention will be patentable if "manner of manufacture" within meaning of s 6 of Statute of Monopolies (21 Jac 1 c 3) – Where question before Federal Court whether invention disclosed by Claim 1 to Patent 967 constituted patentable subject matter – Where Claim 1 described EGM with particular feature game – Where primary judge approached question of patentability by asking: first, whether Claim 1 for mere business scheme; and secondly, if for mere business scheme, one implemented in computer, did invention lie in manner of implementation into computer – Where majority of Full Court adopted alternative approach whereby computer-implemented inventions would be patentable where invention claimed could broadly be described as "advance in computer technology" – Where majority concluded invention disclosed in Claim 1 computer-implemented invention and did not advance computer technology – Whether general principles of patentability apply to computer-implemented inventions – Whether computer-implemented inventions must be advance in computer technology to be patentable – Proper test of patentability for computer-implemented inventions.
Documents*
10/03/2022 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
24/03/2022 Notice of appeal
20/04/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
20/04/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
04/05/2022 Written submissions (Fédération Internationale des Conseils en Propriété Intellectuelle, seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae)
05/05/2022 Written submissions (The Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia, seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae)
11/05/2022 Written submissions (Respondent)
20/05/2022 Reply
09/06/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
09/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
09/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (The Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia, appearing as amicus curiae)
10/06/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
17/08/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
SDCV v. Director-General of Security & Anor
Case No.
S27/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
09/04/2021 Federal Court of Australia (Rares, Bromwich and Abraham JJ)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Ch III of Constitution – Validity of s 46(2) of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act) – Where appellant subject to adverse security assessment (ASA) by Australian Security Intelligence Office (ASIO) – Where appellant sought review of ASA by Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT) – Where s 39A(8) of AAT Act provided ASIO Minister may certify evidence proposed to be adduced or submissions proposed to be made by Director-General of Security are of such nature that disclosure be contrary to public interest – Where s 39B(2)(a) of AAT Actprovided ASIO Minister may certify disclosure of information in certificate, or disclosure of contents of document, would be contrary to public interest – Where ASIO Minister issued certificates under ss 39A(8) and 39B(2)(a) of AAT Act – Where AAT affirmed ASA decision – Where, when appealed to Federal Court, AAT obliged under s 46(1) of AAT Act to send documents before AAT to Court – Where, because certificates in force in respect of certain documents, Federal Court required by s 46(2) of AAT Act to do all things necessary to ensure matter not disclosed to person other than a member of Court – Where Federal Court determined s 46(2) of AAT Act valid and proceeded to determine appeal grounds adversely to appellant while having regard to submissions and evidence to which appellant did not have access by reason of s 46(2) – Whether s 46(2) of AAT Act denies appellant procedural fairness – Whether s 46(2) is invalid by reason of Ch III of Constitution in that it requires Federal Court to act in procedurally unfair manner – Whether decisions in Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Inc v Commissioner of Police (2008) 234 CLR 532; Assistant Commissioner Pompano v Condon Pty Ltd (2013) 252 CLR 38; or Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 263 CLR 1 should be qualified or overruled.
Documents*
21/02/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
07/03/2022 Notice of appeal
11/04/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
11/04/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
06/05/2022 Written submissions (First Respondent)
06/05/2022 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
17/05/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
18/05/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
18/05/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
18/05/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
24/05/2022 Reply
07/06/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
07/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
07/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
07/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
08/06/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
08/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
08/06/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
12/10/2022 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
BHP Group Limited v. Impiombato & Anor
Case No.
M12/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
03/06/2021 Federal Court of Australia (Middleton, McKerracher and Lee JJ)
Catchwords
Representative proceedings – Shareholder class action – Non-resident shareholders – Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act) – Presumption against extraterritoriality – Dual listed company structure – Where claims brought on behalf of non-resident shareholders of BHP Group Limited (Australian company) and BHP Group Plc (United Kingdom company) – Where claims brought in Federal Court of Australia under Pt IVA concerning representative proceedings – Whether Pt IVA of FCA Act applies to claims brought on behalf of non-resident group members – Whether presumption against extraterritorial operation of legislation applies to Pt IVA of FCA Act – Whether Part IVA of FCA Act confers on Federal Court jurisdiction or power to determine claims of group members outside territory.
Documents*
18/02/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
04/03/2022 Notice of appeal
08/04/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/04/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
06/05/2022 Written submissions (Respondents)
27/05/2022 Reply
09/08/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
09/08/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
09/08/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
12/10/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Hore v. The Queen, Wichen v. The Queen
Case No.
A5/2022; A6/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
07/05/2021 Supreme Court of South Australia (Kelly P, Lovell and Bleby JJ)
07/05/2021 Supreme Court of South Australia (Kelly P, Lovell and Bleby JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentence – Sentencing Orders – Offenders incapable of controlling, or unwilling to control, sexual instincts – Meaning of "willing" – Where appellants detained by Court order, following application by Crown, on grounds they were incapable or unwilling to control sexual instincts – Where s 59(1a)(a) of Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) provided person detained cannot be released unless Court satisfied person "capable of controlling and willing to control" person's sexual instincts – Where s 57, providing authority for Court to make order for indefinite detention, contained definition of "unwilling" – Where Court of Appeal held "willing" in s 59(1a)(a) had converse meaning to defined term "unwilling" in s 57(1) such that appellants could only be regarded as willing to control sexual instincts if established no significant risk they would, given opportunity to commit relevant offence, fail to exercise appropriate control of sexual instincts – Whether meaning of "willing" in s 59(1a)(a) is converse of word "unwilling" as defined in s 57 – Proper meaning of term "willing" in s 59(1a)(a).
Documents*
21/02/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
04/03/2022 Notices of appeal
01/04/2022 Written submissions (Appellant A5/2022)
01/04/2022 Chronology (Appellant A5/2022)
01/04/2022 Written submissions (Appellant A6/2022)
01/04/2022 Chronology (Appellant A6/2022)
20/04/2022 Written submissions (Respondent A5/2022)
20/04/2022 Written submissions (Respondent A6/2022)
26/04/2022 Reply (Appellant A5/2022)
26/04/2022 Reply (Appellant A6/2022)
11/05/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/05/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellants - joint)
10/05/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
15/06/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)