ASF17 v. Commonwealth of Australia
Case No.
Case no P7/2024
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Immigration detention – Where first respondent Iranian citizen currently detained under ss 189(1) and 196(1) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Act") as unlawful non-citizen – Where first respondent arrived in Australia on 13 July 2013 and in immigration detention since 10 February 2014 – Where following this Court's decision in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 ("NZYQ"), first respondent filed application in Federal Court for habeas corpus and declaratory relief to effect his ongoing detention has been and is unlawful – Where second respondent argued first respondent could be removed to Iran with their cooperation – Where first respondent argued they had good reasons for fearing harm in Iran and thus for not cooperating – Where primary judge did not accept first respondent's claimed bases for fearing harm if returned to Iran – Where primary judge held constitutional limit in NZYQ should be determined on hypothetical basis first respondent is cooperating – Where primary judge's finding inconsistent with aspects of reasoning in AZC20 v Secretary Department of Home Affairs (No 2) [2023] FCA 1497 – Whether first respondent's ongoing detention lawful – Whether limit on constitutionally permissible duration of immigration detention identified in NZYQ applies in relation to unlawful non-citizens detained under ss 189(1) and 196(1), who are not cooperative with efforts to remove them and, in doing so, prevent their own removal pursuant to s 198.
Documents*
16/02/2024 Consent orders for Removal
22/02/2024 Amended orders for Removal
28/02/2024 Cause Removed
08/03/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/03/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
21/03/2024 Written submissions (AZC20, seeking leave to intervene or to be heard as amicus curiae)
28/03/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
04/04/2024 Reply
17/04/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
17/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
17/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
17/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (AZC20, seeking leave to intervene or to be heard as amicus curiae)
RC v. The Salvation Army (Western Australia) Property Trust
Case No.
Case no P7/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/02/2023 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) (Murphy and Vaughan JJA, Bleby AJA)
Catchwords
Civil procedure – Permanent stay of proceedings – Prejudice – Where appellant claimed damages with respect to loss and damage suffered as result of sexual abuse by Salvation Army Officer between August 1959 and April 1960, when appellant aged 12 and 13 years old, while in care of respondent – Where Salvation Army Officer died in 2006, eight years before respondent first became aware appellant alleged sexual abuse – Where another key witness died in 1968 – Where respondent applied for permanent stay of proceedings – Where primary judge granted permanent stay – Where appellant unsuccessfully appealed to Court of Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding open to primary judge to grant permanent stay of appellant's action against respondent – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding finding of prejudice.
Documents*
16/03/2023 Application for special leave to appeal
08/02/2024 Determination
14/03/2024 Written submissions (Applicant)
14/03/2024 Chronology (Applicant)
04/04/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
15/04/2024 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Smith
Case No.
Case no M16/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/11/2023 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Emerton P, Priest & Macaulay JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal practice – Open justice – Where respondent faces trial in County Court of Victoria on indictment charging them with four child sexual offences – Where child complainant gave evidence at special hearing conducted pursuant to s 370 of Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) ("CPA") – Where day prior to special hearing, presiding judge met with complainant in presence of both prosecutor and defence counsel at offices of Child Witness Service – Where respondent's counsel did not object to introductory meeting and judge made directions for fair and efficient conduct of proceeding pursuant to s 389E of CPA, having regard to recommendations made by intermediary – Where introductory meeting not recorded and accused not present – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding introductory meeting between child complainant, presiding judge, prosecutor and defence counsel prior to special hearing at which complainant gave evidence, not authorised by s 389E of CPA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding introductory meeting inconsistent with principle of open justice – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding introductory meeting fundamental irregularity in respondent’s trial that could not be waived.
Documents*
08/02/2024 Determination
22/02/2024 Notice of appeal
08/03/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/03/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
22/03/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
28/03/2024 Reply
18/04/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
18/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
18/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
Naaman v. Jaken Properties Australia Pty Limited ACN 123 423 432 & Ors
Case No.
Case no S26/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
08/09/2023 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bell CJ, Leeming & Kirk JJA)
Catchwords
Equity – Fiduciary duty – Fiduciary duty between former and successor trustees – Duties of trustees – Where first respondent successor trustee – Where second respondent sole director and shareholder of former trustee – Where former trustee appointed in June 2005 – Where in November 2006, appellant commenced proceedings against former trustee seeking damages of $2 million – Where first respondent replaced former trustee by way of deed of appointment – Where former trustee promised indemnity from first respondent as successor trustee – Where former trustee wound up because of claim for $2,500, with effect appellant's pending proceedings stayed – Where legal title to trust assets transferred to first respondent as trustee – Where on March 2014, default judgment entered in favour of appellant against former trustee – Where judgment set aside by consent, and proceedings reheard in December 2014 – Where on 25 February 2016, primary judge made orders entering judgment for appellant against former trustee in amount of $3.4 million and declared former trustee entitled to be indemnified out of trust assets – Where in meantime, trust assets dissipated by first respondent at discretion of third respondent – Where other respondents either knowingly involved in conduct or received trust property – Where primary judge found first respondent breached fiduciary duties, and other respondents either knowingly involved in the conduct or received trust property – Where Court of Appeal majority held first respondent did not owe fiduciary obligation at any time – Whether Court of Appeal majority erred in concluding first respondent as successor trustee did not owe fiduciary duty to former trustee not to deal with trust assets so as to destroy, diminish or jeopardise former trustee’s right of indemnity or exoneration from those assets.
Documents*
08/02/2024 Determination
22/02/2024 Notice of appeal
28/03/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
28/03/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
26/04/2024 Written submissions (Respondents)
17/05/2024 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Stuart & Ors v. State of South Australia & Ors
Case No.
Case no A1/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
14/08/2023 Federal Court of Australia (Rangiah, Charlesworth and O’Bryan JJ)
Catchwords
Native title – Extinguishment – Proper construction of "native title" in s 223(1) Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ("NTA") – Overlapping claims – Where appellants together comprise applicant in native title determination under s 61 of NTA made on behalf of Arabana people in March 2013 over area in vicinity of township of Oodnadatta in South Australia – Where over subsequent five years different claim group, Walka Wani people, made two claims concerning same area ("overlap area") – Where in January 1998 Arabana made claim over area abutting overlap area, resulting in consent determination in 2012 in favour of Arabana in Dodd v State of South Australia [2012] FCA 519 ("Dodd") – Where overlap area omitted from 1998 claim area because Arabana believed different accommodation of their rights in overlap area would be made by state government – Where primary judge dismissed Arabana claim and made determination of native title in favour of Walka Wani – Where appellants unsuccessfully appealed orders dismissing Arabana Claim to Full Court – Whether Full Court majority erred by not finding trial judge failed to correctly construe and apply definition of "native title" in s 223(1) when dismissing Arabana’s native title determination application – Whether Full Court erred by treating all aspects of determination in Dodd as being geographically specific.
Documents*
08/02/2024 Determination
22/02/2024 Notice of appeal
28/03/2024 Written submissions (Appellants)
28/03/2024 Chronology (Appellants)
26/04/2024 Written submissions (Respondents)
17/05/2024 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.