Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Date: 06 February 2018
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 28m
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.
In the matter of questions referred to the Court of Disputed Returns pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) concerning
Ms Skye Kakoschke-Moore
Case No.
C30/2017
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Constitution s 44(i) – Vacancies – Where incumbent submitted resignation from Senate upon becoming aware of foreign citizenship – Where Court held vacancy in representation of South Australia in Senate by reason of s 44(i) – Whether vacancy should be filled by special count – Whether incumbent capable of being chosen to fill vacancy because renounced foreign citizenship – Whether candidate should be excluded from special count because ceased to be member of political party to which he belonged at election.
Documents
29/11/2017 Reference from the President of the Senate
07/12/2017 Notice of constitutional matter (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
08/12/2017 Determination (Single Justice, Canberra)
08/12/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra v/link to Melbourne and Sydney)
15/01/2018 Written submissions (Ms Kakoschke-Moore)
15/01/2018 Chronology (Ms Kakoschke-Moore)
22/01/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
22/01/2018 Written submissions (Mr Storer)
22/01/2018 Chronology (Mr Storer)
24/01/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link to Sydney)
30/01/2018 Reply
13/02/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/02/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)
21/03/2018 Reasons for Judgment (Judgment summary)
Coshott v. Spencer & Ors
Case No.
S4/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
31/05/2017 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Beazley ACJ, McColl JA, Simpson JA)
Catchwords
Costs – Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98 – Exception in London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley (1884) 13 QBD 872 – Solicitor acting as self-represented litigant – Where first respondent represented clients in Federal Court proceedings – Where clients and appellant bought application for assessment of costs claimed in respect of Federal Court proceedings – Where costs assessor dismissed appellant’s application on basis appellant not “third party payer” within meaning of Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) s 302A – Where District Court dismissed appeal against costs assessment – Where District Court ordered appellant pay costs of proceedings – Where costs assessor allowed first respondent professional costs for self-representation at costs appeal – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal against second costs assessment – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding first respondent entitled to recover costs in respect of time spent in conduct of legal proceedings – Whether costs assessor has jurisdiction to determine if appellant “third party payer” within meaning of s 302A – Whether Chorley exception inapplicable because of Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98.
Documents
15/12/2017 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
02/01/2018 Notice of appeal
15/01/2018 Submitting appearance (Second to Fourth Respondents)
02/02/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/02/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
19/03/2018 Written submissions (First Respondent)
10/04/2018 Reply
10/05/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
Special leave revoked at hearing
10/05/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
10/05/2018 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
Hossain v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Case No.
S1/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
25/05/2017 Federal Court of Australia (Flick J, Farrell J, Mortimer J)
Catchwords
Migration – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – Jurisdictional error – Where appellant applied for Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s 65 of Act – Where cl 820.211(2)(d)(ii) of sch 2 of Regulations required appellant to satisfy sch 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 unless Minister satisfied compelling reasons for not applying criteria – Where delegate of Minister refused visa on basis appellant did not satisfy item 3001 – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) affirmed delegate’s decision on basis no compelling reasons for not applying sch 3 criteria and appellant did not satisfy PIC 4004 as required by cl 820.223 of sch 2 – Where Federal Circuit Court quashed decision on basis AAT fell into jurisdictional error in confining itself to “compelling reasons” at time of application – Where majority of Full Federal Court allowed appeal, restoring AAT decision on basis AAT retained jurisdiction to determine discrete issue relating to PIC 4004 – Whether Full Federal Court erred in finding that, although AAT decision infected by jurisdictional error, AAT nevertheless retained jurisdiction to make decision.
Documents
13/12/2017 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
02/01/2018 Notice of appeal
09/01/2018 Submitting appearance (Second Respondent)
19/01/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
19/01/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
07/02/2017 Written submissions (First Respondent)
23/02/2018 Reply
21/03/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
21/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
21/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
15/08/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
The Queen v. Dennis Bauer (a pseudonym)
Case No.
M1/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/06/2017 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Priest J, Kyrou J and Kaye J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Sexual offences against child – Re-trial after appeal – Where trial judge permitted previously recorded evidence of complainant to be tendered – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding trial judge erred in permitting previously recorded evidence to be tendered as evidence in re-trial – Tendency evidence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding substantial miscarriage of justice because of admission of tendency evidence – Proper approach to tendency evidence where prosecution seeks to prove tendency on evidence from complainant and source independent of complainant – Severance – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding failure to sever charge 2 occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding admission of previous statement of complaint occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice.
Documents
15/12/2017 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
02/01/2018 Notice of appeal
02/02/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/02/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
02/03/2018 Written submissions (Respondent)
02/03/2018 Chronology (Respondent)
23/03/2018 Reply (Appellant)
03/04/2018 Reply (Respondent)
13/06/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
13/06/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
13/06/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
12/09/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)