Northern Territory of Australia v. Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples & Anor
Commonwealth of Australia v. Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples & Anor
Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples v. Northern Territory of Australia & Anor

Case Nos.

D1/2018, D2/2018 and D3/2018

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

20/07/2017 Federal Court of Australia (North ACJ, Barker J, Mortimer J)
(Orders pronounced 09/08/2017)

[2017] FCAFC 106

Catchwords

Native title – Extinguishment – Compensation for extinguishment – Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) – Where claim brought against Commonwealth and Northern Territory for extinguishment of non-exclusive native title rights and interests in Timber Creek – Where primary judge awarded claim group compensation for economic value of extinguished rights, interest, and solatium for loss or impairment of rights and interests – Where Full Court held primary judge erred in assessing value of extinguished rights and concluded value of rights was 65% of value of freehold title – Whether Full Court’s assessment of economic value of rights erroneous or manifestly excessive in light of restrictions and limitations on rights – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find primary judge erred in awarding interest as part of compensation under s 51(1) of Act and not as interest on compensation – Whether Full Court erred in assessing interest by reference to 65% of value of freehold title – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find primary judge erred in assessing compensation for non-economic loss – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find primary judge’s assessment of compensation for non-economic loss manifestly excessive – Whether Full Court erred in finding commercial agreements entered into by claimants containing solatium-type payments irrelevant to assessment of compensation. 

Short particulars

Documents*

16/02/2018 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)

01/03/2018 Notices of appeal

06/04/2018 Written submissions (Commonwealth of Australia)

06/04/2018 Chronology (Commonwealth of Australia)

06/04/2018 Written submissions (Northern Territory)

06/04/2018 Chronology (Northern Territory)

20/04/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)

20/04/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)

20/04/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)

04/05/2018 Written submissions (Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples)

04/05/2018 Chronology (Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples)

18/05/2018 Written submissions (Central Desert Native Title Services Ltd and Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation intervening)

24/05/2018 Reply (Northern Territory)

25/05/2018 Reply (Commonwealth of Australia)

30/05/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Sydney and Darwin)

04/09/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Darwin)

04/09/2018 Outline of oral argument (Northern Territory)

04/09/2018 Outline of oral argument (Commonwealth of Australia)

05/09/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Darwin)

05/09/2018 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)

05/09/2018 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)

05/09/2018 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)

05/09/2018 Outline of oral argument (Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples)

06/09/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Darwin)

06/09/2018 Outline of oral argument (Central Desert Native Title Services Ltd and Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation intervening)

13/03/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)

17/04/2019 Summons seeking orders pursuant to Section XAA of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples)

19/06/2019 Judgment

Johnson v. The Queen

Case No.

A9/2018

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

24/11/2015 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Sulan J, Peek J & Stanley J)

[2015] SASCFC 170

Catchwords

Criminal law – Evidence – Probative value – Doli incapax – Where jury convicted appellant of five counts of sexual offences against younger sister – Where Court of Criminal Appeal quashed convictions in respect of count 1 (“shed incident”) because prosecution failed to rebut presumption of doli incapax and count 3 (persistent sexual exploitation) because evidence did not identify any particular act – Where Court of Criminal Appeal upheld remaining convictions –  Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred by failing to set aside remaining convictions because evidence led in respect of courts 1 and 3 inadmissible in respect of other counts or permissible use not sufficiently identified – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in failing to find substantial miscarriage of justice.

Short particulars

Documents

16/02/2018 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane v/link Adelaide)

02/03/2018 Notice of appeal

06/04/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)

06/04/2018 Chronology (Appellant)

04/05/2018 Written submissions (Respondent)

25/05/2018 Reply (Appellant)

20/06/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Perth)

20/06/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)

20/06/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)

17/10/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Amaca Pty Limited v. Latz
Latz v. Amaca Pty Limited

Case Nos.

A8/2018 and A7/2018

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

30/10/2017 Supreme Court of South Australia (Full Court) (Blue J, Stanley J, Hinton J)

[2017] SASCFC 145

Catchwords

Torts – Personal injury – Damages – Future economic loss – Where primary judge concluded plaintiff’s mesothelioma caused by asbestos emanating from products manufactured by defendant – Where primary judge awarded damages for loss of expectation of receiving age pension and superannuation pension during “lost years” – Where majority of Full Court held primary judge correctly awarded damages for future economic loss but reduced allowance for superannuation pension – Whether majority of Full Court erred in failing to find primary judge erred in awarding damages for future economic loss during “lost years” – Whether Full Court erred in including allowance for loss of expectation of receiving age pension and superannuation pension – Whether Full Court erred in deducting benefit payable to partner upon death from allowance for loss of expectation of receiving superannuation pension.

Short particulars

Documents

16/02/2018 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)

20/02/2018 Notice of appeal

16/03/2018 Written submissions (Amaca Pty Ltd)

16/03/2018 Chronology (Amaca Pty Ltd)

28/03/2018 Written submissions (Mr Latz)

06/04/2018 Reply

17/04/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

17/04/2018 Outline of oral argument (Amaca Pty Ltd)

17/04/2018 Outline of oral argument (Mr Latz)

11/05/2018 Hearing (Full Court) - orders pronounced

13/06/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)

In the matter of questions referred to the Court of Disputed Returns pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) concerning
Senator Katy Gallagher

Case No.

C32/2017

Case Information

Catchwords

Questions referred by the Senate - Court of Disputed Returns - Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) - s376, s377 - Qualification of Senator - Constitution - s44(i)

Questions:

  1. whether, by reason of s 44(i) of the Constitution, there is a vacancy in the representation for the Australian Capital Territory in the Senate for the place for which Katy Gallagher was returned;
  2. if the answer to Question (a) is “yes”, by what means and in what manner that vacancy should be filled;
  3. what directions and other orders, if any, should the Court make in order to hear and finally dispose of this reference; and
  4. what, if any, orders should be made as to the costs of these proceedings.

Short particulars

Documents

07/12/2017 Reference from the President of the Senate

22/12/2017 Notice of constitutional matter (Senator Gallagher)

19/01/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane v/link Melbourne and Sydney)

12/02/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)

26/02/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)

05/03/2018 Written submissions (Senator Gallagher)

09/03/2018 Reply (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)

14/03/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)

14/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)

14/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (Senator Gallagher)

09/05/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)

16/05/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)

23/05/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane v/link Sydney and Melbourne)

Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

Case: DL v. The Queen (South Australia)

Date: 15 February 2018

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 2h 13m

 

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.

 

Page 116 of 257