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)
Minogue v. State of Victoria
Case No.
M2/2017
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Parole – Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) s 74AAA – Where plaintiff convicted of murder – Where victim was police officer – Where plaintiff sentenced to life imprisonment – Where non-parole period expired on 30 September 2016 – Where Justice Legislation Amendment (Parole Reform and Other matters) Act 2016 (Vic) inserted s 74AAA into Corrections Act – Where s 74AAA imposes conditions for making parole order for prisoner who murdered police officer – Where Corrections Legislation Further Amendment Act 2017 (Vic) inserted s 127A into Corrections Act – Where s 127A provides s 74AAA applies regardless of whether prior to commencement of s 74AAA prisoner became eligible for parole, prisoner took steps to ask Board to grant parole, or Board began consideration of whether prisoner should be granted parole – Whether s 74AAA applies where prior to commencement of s 74AAA, plaintiff became eligible for parole, plaintiff made application for parole, or Board decided to proceed with parole planning – Whether s 74AAA applies where plaintiff commenced proceeding prior to commencement of s 127A – Whether s 74AAA applies where knowledge or recklessness as to whether victim was police officer was not element of offence of which plaintiff convicted – Whether s 74AAA and/or s 127A invalid as unconstitutional.
Documents
03/01/2017 Writ of summons
12/01/2017 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)
11/04/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
06/06/2017 Hearing ((Single Justice, Melbourne)
16/06/2017 Amended Writ of summons
06/10/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
20/10/2017 Amended Statement of claim
21/12/2017 Special case stated
02/03/2018 Consent order varying timetable
12/03/2018 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
16/04/2018 Written submissions (Defendant)
30/04/2018 Reply (Plaintiff)
30/04/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
30/04/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
30/04/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
30/04/2018 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
20/06/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
15/05/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
15/05/2018 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiff)
15/05/2018 Outline of oral argument (Defendant)
15/05/2018 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales Intervening)
15/05/2018 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
15/05/2018 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
15/05/2018 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
20/06/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)