Australian Securities & Investments Commission v. Lewski & Anor
Australian Securities & Investments Commission v. Wooldridge & Anor
Australian Securities & Investments Commission v. Butler & Anor
Australian Securities & Investments Commission v. Jaques & Anor
Australian Securities & Investments Commission v. Clarke & Anor
Case Nos.
M79/2018, M80/2018, M81/2018, M82/2018, M83/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
1/11/2017 Federal Court of Australia (Greenwood J, Middleton J, Foster J)
Catchwords
Corporations – Managed investment schemes – Third party transactions – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 208, 209, 601FC, 601FD, 601GC – Where directors resolved to lodge deed purporting to amend constitution to authorise payment of fee to responsible entity – Where appellant brought civil penalty proceedings for contraventions of Act against responsible entity and directors – Where trial judge concluded directors breached duties in resolving to lodge deed and authorising payment of fee – Where Full Court allowed appeals – Whether Full Court erred in concluding deed purporting to amend constitution valid until set aside by Court – Whether Full Court erred in concluding deed binding on responsible entity – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find directors involved in contravention of s 208 by authorising payment of fee to responsible entity.
Documents
18/05/2018 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
01/06/2018 Notice of appeal
19/06/2018 Submitting appearance - all matters (Second Respondent)
26/06/2018 Submitting appearance - Clarke (First Respondent)
06/07/2018 Written submissions - Lewski (Appellant)
06/07/2018 Written submissions - Wooldridge (Appellant)
06/07/2018 Written submissions - Butler (Appellant)
06/07/2018 Written submissions - Jaques (Appellant)
06/07/2018 Written submissions - Clarke (Appellant)
06/07/2018 Joint Chronology (Appellant)
03/08/2017 Written submissions - Lewski (First Respondent)
03/08/2018 Written submissions - Wooldridge (First Respondent)
03/08/2018 Written submissions - Butler (First Respondent)
03/08/2018 Written submissions - Jaques (First Respondent)
24/08/2018 Reply - Lewski
24/08/2018 Reply - Wooldridge
24/08/2018 Reply - Butler
24/08/2018 Reply - Jaques
17/10/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
17/10/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
17/10/2018 Outline of oral argument - Lewski (First Respondent)
17/10/2018 Outline of oral argument - Wooldridge; Butler; Jaques (First Respondents)
18/10/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/12/2018 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
CQZ15 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Case No.
M75/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/11/2017 Federal Court of Australia (Kenny J, Tracey J, Griffiths J)
Catchwords
Migration – Jurisdictional error – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 438 – Where appellant applied for protection visa – Where application refused by delegate – Where appellant applied to Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of decision – Where delegate issued certificate under s 438(1)(a) that disclosure of certain information would be contrary to public interest – Where certificate invalid – Where delegate issued further certificate – Where Tribunal did not inform appellant of certificates or disclose information to appellant – Where Tribunal affirmed delegate’s decision – Where Federal Circuit Court concluded Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in acting upon invalid certificate and failing to disclose existence of certificates to appellant – Where Full Federal Court allowed appeal – Whether Full Court erred in departing from Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh (2016) 244 FCR 305 by failing to find Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in not disclosing certificates – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find not open to primary judge to withhold relief where decision affected by jurisdictional error.
Documents
10/05/2018 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
24/05/2018 Notice of appeal
29/05/2018 Submitting appearance (Second Respondent)
28/06/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
28/06/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
28/06/2018 Notice of Constitutional Matter (Appellant)
26/07/2018 Written submissions (First Respondent)
13/08/2018 Reply
27/08/2018 Reply in support of cross appeal (Appellant)
03/09/2018 Amended chronology (Appellant)
10/09/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/09/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
10/09/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
13/02/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
McPhillamy v. The Queen
Case No.
S121/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
14/06/2017 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Meagher JA, Harrison J, RA Hulme J)
Catchwords
Evidence – Tendency evidence – Where appellant charged with offences involving child sexual abuse – Where trial judge admitted tendency evidence – Where appellant convicted at trial – Where Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether majority of Court of Criminal Appeal erred in holding tendency evidence had significant probative value – Whether majority of Court of Criminal Appeal erred in holding probative value of tendency evidence substantially outweighed prejudicial effect.
Documents
20/04/2018 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
03/05/2018 Notice of appeal
08/06/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/06/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
06/07/2018 Written submissions (Respondent)
27/07/2018 Reply
09/08/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
Orders made at the conclusion of the hearing
09/08/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
09/08/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
08/11/2018 Reasons for Judgment (Judgment summary)
Work Health Authority v. Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd & Anor
Case No.
D4/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/10/2017 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Court of Appeal) (Southwood J, Blokland J, Riley J)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Inconsistency – Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) – Where hot air balloon passenger died from injuries suffered as result of scarf being sucked into inflation fan – Where appellant alleged first respondent breached s 32 of Act – Where magistrate dismissed complaint on basis Air Navigation Act 1920 (Cth), Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) and other Commonwealth regulation covered field of safety of air navigation – Where Court of Appeal allowed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding federal civil aviation legislation excluded operation of Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT).
Documents
20/04/2018 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
03/05/2018 Notice of appeal
08/06/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/06/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
22/06/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
22/06/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
22/06/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania intervening)
22/06/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
22/06/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
06/07/2018 Written submissions (First Respondent)
27/07/2018 Reply
14/08/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/08/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
14/08/2018 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
14/08/2018 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
14/08/2018 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
14/08/2018 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania intervening)
14/08/2018 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
15/08/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
Rodi v. State of Western Australia
Case No.
P24/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
21/04/2017 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Buss P, Newnes and Mitchell JJA )
Catchwords
Criminal law – Miscarriage of justice – Fresh evidence – Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) – Where appellant convicted at trial of possession with intent to sell or supply contrary to s 6(1)(a) of Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) – Where prosecution witness gave evidence at trial about cannabis yields – Where witness’ evidence inconsistent with witness’ earlier evidence – Where majority of Court of Appeal characterised witness’ earlier evidence as fresh evidence but dismissed appeal on basis no significant possibility appellant would have been acquitted if fresh evidence before jury – Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in concluding no significant possibility of acquittal – Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in holding that if prosecutor breached duty of disclosure, breach did not give rise to miscarriage of justice.
Documents
20/04/2018 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Perth)
04/05/2018 Notice of appeal
15/06/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
15/06/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
13/07/2018 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/07/2018 Reply
07/08/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/08/2018 Outline of argument (Appellant)
07/08/2018 Outline of argument (Respondent)
10/10/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)