Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: PRODUCTIVITY PARTNERS PTY LTD (TRADING AS CAPTAIN COOK COLLEGE) ACN 085 570 547 & ANOR V AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION & ANOR; WILLS V AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION & ORS
Date: 07 February 2024
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 31m
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.
Commonwealth of Australia v. Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors
His Honour Judge Salvatore Paul Vasta v. Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors
State of Queensland v. Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors
Case Nos.
Case nos C3/2024; C4/2024; S24/2024
Case Information
Catchwords C3 and C4/2024
Constitutional law – Chapter III Court – Judicial Immunity – Contempt order – Where Judge of Federal Circuit Court ("Judge"), incorrectly found Mr Stradford ("Mr S") in contempt and sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment – Where Mr S detained for six days – Where Full Court allowed Mr S' appeal and set aside contempt declaration and imprisonment order – Where Mr S commenced proceeding in Federal Court alleging false imprisonment by Judge – Where Federal Court held Judge liable for false imprisonment – Where Federal Court found Commonwealth and State of Queensland ("Queensland") vicariously liable – Where Mr S, Commonwealth and Queensland each appealed to Full Court of the Federal Court – Whether Judge liable to Mr S for tort of false imprisonment – Whether Federal Circuit Court of Australia had power to punish for contempt despite its designation as inferior court – Whether order for contempt by inferior court affected by jurisdictional error void ab initio – Whether Judge had same immunity as superior court judge with respect to making of contempt orders – Whether Federal Court erred in concluding Commonwealth and Queensland not afforded protection at common law from civil liability in circumstances where their respective officers executed imprisonment order and warrant issued by Circuit Court which appeared valid on their face – Whether Federal Court erred in concluding Circuit Court’s constitutionally derived power to punish contempts and its power under s 17 of Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth)ousted or limited by Pts XIIIA and XIIIB of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether Federal Court erred in finding errors Judge made "outside" or "in excess of" jurisdiction and he had pre-judged outcome of hearing in relation to contempt orders.
Catchwords S24/2024
Torts – False imprisonment – Contempt order – Where second respondent incorrectly found first respondent in contempt and sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment – Where first respondent detained for six days – Where officers of appellant took and held first respondent in custody – Where Full Court allowed first respondent's appeal and set aside contempt declaration and imprisonment order – Where first respondent commenced proceeding in Federal Court alleging false imprisonment by second respondent – Where Federal Court held second respondent liable for false imprisonment – Where Federal Court found third respondent and appellant vicariously liable – Where third respondent, second respondent and appellant each appealed to Full Court of the Federal Court – Whether appellant liable to first respondent for tort of false imprisonment – Whether Federal Court erred in concluding third respondent and appellant not afforded protection at common law from civil liability in circumstances where their respective officers executed imprisonment order and warrant issued by Circuit Court which appeared valid on their face – Whether Federal Court erred in concluding s 249 of Criminal Code (Qld) did not apply to warrant issued by Federal Circuit Court, and Court ought to have held ss 247, 249 and 250, which together relevantly provide for limited immunity for persons executing sentences passed and warrants issued without authority, applied to Queensland’s officers executing warrant and imprisonment order.
Documents*
08/02/2024 Determination (Commonwealth of Australia v. Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors)
08/02/2024 Determination (His Honour Judge Salvatore Paul Vasta v. Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors)
08/02/2024 Determination (State of Queensland v. Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors)
15/02/2024 Causes Removed from the Federal Court
28/03/2024 Written submissions (HH Judge Vasta)
28/03/2024 Chronology (HH Judge Vasta)
28/03/2024 Written submissions (State of Queensland)
28/03/2024 Chronology (State of Queensland)
28/03/2024 Written submissions (Commonwealth)
28/03/2024 Chronology (Commonwealth)
12/04/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, seeking leave to intervene)
10/05/2024 Written submissions (Mr Stradford)
24/05/2024 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: CEREMONIAL SITTING ON THE OCCASION OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENT OF SENIOR COUNSEL
Date: 05 February 2024
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 0h 17m
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.
Commonwealth of Australia v. Sanofi (formerly Sanofi-Aventis) & Ors
Case No.
S169/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
26/06/2023 Federal Court of Australia (Besanko J, Perram J, Yates J)
Catchwords
Damages – Patent litigation – Compensation for loss flowing from interlocutory injunction – Where respondent held patent for clopidogrel – Where interlocutory injunction obtained restraining generic supplier from entering market – Where generic supplier undertook not to seek Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (“PBS”) listing – Where respondent undertook to compensate persons adversely affected by injunction – Where respondent's patent subsequently found invalid – Where Commonwealth sought recovery of additional subsidies provided to respondent due to non-listing of generic clopidogrel – Where primary judge dismissed Commonwealth's application, and Full Court dismissed appeal by Commonwealth – Whether Full Court erred in failing to hold Commonwealth’s evidential burden was to establish prima facie case that its loss flowed directly from interlocutory injunction with evidential burden shifted to respondents to establish that generic supplier would not have sought listing on PBS even if not enjoined – Whether Full Court erred in failing to hold Commonwealth discharged its evidential burden but respondents did not – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find, by inference from evidence, that in absence of interlocutory injunction, it was likely that Dr Sherman would have reconfirmed plan to seek PBS listing.
Documents*
18/12/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
21/12/2023 Notice of appeal
15/04/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
15/04/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
24/05/2024 Written submissions (Respondents)
14/06/2024 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
BQ v. The King
Case No.
S173/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
03/03/2023 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (DaviesJ, McNaughton J, R A Hulme AJ)
Catchwords
Evidence – Admissibility of expert evidence – Where complainants two sisters and nieces of appellant – Where appellant convicted at second trial of child sexual assault offending – Where Crown sought to rely on evidence from Associate Professor Shackel with respect to (a) how victims of child sexual assault respond to and disclose their victimisation and (b) matters relevant to complainants’ conduct during and after alleged assaults and whether such conduct consistent with research – Where trial judge ruled evidence in respect of (a) admissible but refused to admit evidence in respect of (b) – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in holding expert evidence concerning behaviour of perpetrators of child sexual assault offences, risk factors for sexual abuse and when abuse commonly takes place admissible as expert opinion evidence and occasioned no miscarriage of justice in trial – Whether Court erred in holding that trial judge’s directions to jury in respect of expert evidence adequate and did not occasion miscarriage of justice.
Documents*
07/12/2023 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
21/12/2023 Notice of appeal
01/02/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/02/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
29/02/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
21/03/2024 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.