Frugtniet v. Australian Securities & Investments Commission
Case No.
M136/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
12/10/2017 Federal Court of Australia (Reeves J, Farrell J, Gleeson J)
Catchwords
Consumer law – Banning orders – National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) s 80 – Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 85ZZH – Where Commission made banning order under s 80 on basis appellant not “fit and proper person to engage in credit activities” – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed Commission’s order – Where primary judge and Full Federal Court dismissed appeals – Whether Full Federal Court erred in holding Tribunal not prevented by Crimes Act from considering “spent convictions”.
Documents
17/08/2018 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
31/08/2018 Notice of appeal
31/08/2018 Notice of constitutional matter (Appellant)
05/10/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
05/10/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
02/11/2018 Written submissions (Respondent)
19/11/2018 Reply
07/02/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/02/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
07/02/2019 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
15/05/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Victorian Building Authority v. Andriotis
Case No.
M134/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
21/02/2018 Federal Court of Australia(Flick, Bromberg & Rangiah JJ)
Catchwords
Interpretation – Mutual Recognition Act 1999 (Cth) s 17, 20 – Where respondent registered in New South Wales as waterproofing technician – Where respondent applied to appellant for registration under Building Act 1993 (Vic) – Where appellant refused to grant registration because respondent not of “good character” as required by s 170(1)(c) of Building Act – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed decision – Where Full Federal Court allowed appeal – Whether Full Federal Court erred in holding appellant required by s 20(2) to register respondent for equivalent occupation under Building Act notwithstanding appellant found respondent not of good character – Whether Full Federal Court erred in holding exception to mutual recognition principle in s 17(2) of Mutual Recognition Act does not quality “entitlement” to be registered under s 20(1) – Whether Full Court erred in holding “good character” requirement in Building Act not law regulating “manner” of carrying out occupation within meaning of s 17(2) of Mutual Recognition Act.
Documents
17/08/2018 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
31/08/2018 Notice of appeal
05/10/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
05/10/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
02/11/2018 Written submissions (Respondent)
16/11/2018 Reply
12/02/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/02/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
12/02/2019 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
07/08/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v. Kobelt
Case No.
A32/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
20/02/2018 Federal Court of Australia (Besanko J, Gilmour J, Wigney J)
Catchwords
Consumer law – Australian Securities and Investments Act 2001 (Cth) s 12CB, 12CC – Unconscionable conduct – Where respondent operated general store in remote town – Where respondent provided credit to indigenous customers – Where primary judge held respondent contravened s 12CB(1) by engaging in system of unconscionable conduct in connection with supply of financial services to customers – Where Full Federal Court allowed appeal – Whether Full Federal Court erred in construction and application of ss 12CB and 12CC.
Documents
17/08/2018 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
31/08/2018 Notice of appeal
05/10/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
05/10/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
02/11/2018 Written submissions (Respondent)
16/11/2018 Reply
23/11/2018 Reply on cross appeal
04/12/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
04/12/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
04/12/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
12/06/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
McKell v. The Queen
Case No.
S223/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
8/12/2017 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Payne JA, Beech-Jones J, Fagan J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Trial by jury – Summing up – Where appellant intercepted two consignments between arrival in Sydney and transfer to freight forwarding agency – Where second consignment contained prohibited drug – Where appellant charged with importing commercial quantity of prohibited drug, conspiring to import commercial quantity of prohibited drug and dealing with proceeds of crime – Where appellant tried before jury – Where trial judge commented on evidence in summing up – Where appellant convicted of charges – Where majority of Court of Appeal dismissed appeal against convictions – Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in failing to find trial judge’s summing up unbalanced and caused miscarriage of justice.
Documents
17/08/2018 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
29/08/2018 Notice of appeal
05/10/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
05/10/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
02/11/2018 Written submissions (Respondent)
16/11/2018 Reply
07/12/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/12/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
07/12/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
13/02/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017
Case No.
M129/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/03/2018 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Maxwell P, Weinberg and Beach JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Trial by jury – Prasad direction – Where accused charged with murder – Where counsel for accused sought Prasad direction on basis prosecution case not strong insofar as prosecution required to prove beyond reasonable doubt accused not acting in self-defence – Where trial judge gave Prasad direction – Where jury returned verdicts of not guilty of murder or manslaughter – Where Director of Public Prosecutions referred point of law to Court of Appeal under s 308 of Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) – Where Court of Appeal determined giving of Prasad direction not contrary to law – Where majority of Court of Appeal determined direction may continue to be administered to jury in criminal trial – Whether Court of Appeal erred in determining giving of Prasad direction not contrary to law – Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in determining Prasad direction may continue to be administered to jury in criminal trial.
Documents
15/08/2018 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
29/08/2018 Notice of appeal
26/09/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
26/09/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
12/10/2018 Written submissions (Respondent/Acquitted Person)
19/10/2018 Reply
06/11/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/11/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
06/11/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent / Acquitted Person)
20/03/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)