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 Nick Xenophon
Case No.
C18/2017
Related matters:
C11/2017 – Senate Reference Re Senator the Hon Canavan
C12/2017 – Senate Reference Re Mr Ludlam
C13/2017 – Senate Reference Re Ms Waters
C14/2017 – Senate Reference Re Senator Roberts
C15/2017 – House of Representatives Reference Re: The Hon Mr Joyce MP
C17/2017 – Senate Reference Re Senator the Hon. Nash
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:
- whether by reason of s 44(i) of the Constitution there is a vacancy in the representation of South Australia in the Senate for the place for which Senator Xenophon was returned;
- if the answer to Question (a) is ‘yes’, by what means and in what manner that vacancy should be filled;
- what directions and other orders, if any, should the Court make in order to hear and finally dispose of this reference; and
- what, if any, orders should be made as to the costs of these proceedings.
Documents
05/09/2017 Reference from the President of the Senate
15/09/2017 Hearing – Determination (Single Justice, Canberra v/link to Melbourne and Sydney)
15/09/2017 Hearing – Directions (Single Justice, Canberra v/link to Melbourne, Sydney)
18/09/2017 Notice of constitutional matter (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
26/09/2017 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
26/09/2017 Chronology
28/09/2017 Written submissions (Senator Xenophon)
03/10/2017 Written submissions (Mr Kennett as Amicus Curiae)
06/10/2017 Reply (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
10/10/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/10/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/10/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
27/10/2017 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
the Hon. Ms Fiona Nash
Case No.
C17/2017
Related matters:
C11/2017 – Senate Reference Re Senator the Hon Canavan
C12/2017 – Senate Reference Re Mr Ludlam
C13/2017 – Senate Reference Re Ms Waters
C14/2017 – Senate Reference Re Senator Roberts
C15/2017 – House of Representatives Reference Re: The Hon Mr Joyce MP
C18/2017 – Senate Reference Re Senator Xenophon
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
- whether by reason of s 44(i) of the Constitution, there is a vacancy in the representation of New South Wales in the Senate for the place for which Senator Fiona Nash was returned;
- if the answer to Question (a) is “yes”, by what means and in what manner that vacancy should be filled;
- what directions and other orders, if any, should the Court make in order to hear and finally dispose of this reference; and
- what, if any, orders should be made as to the costs of these proceedings.
Documents
05/09/2017 Reference from the President of the Senate
15/09/2017 Hearing – Determination (Single Justice, Canberra v/link to Melbourne and Sydney)
15/09/2017 Hearing – Directions (Single Justice, Canberra v/link to Melbourne, Sydney)
18/09/2017 Notice of constitutional matter (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
26/09/2017 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
26/09/2017 Chronology
28/09/2017 Written submissions (Senator Nash)
03/10/2017 Written submissions (Mr Kennett as Amicus Curiae)
06/10/2017 Reply (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
10/10/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/10/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/10/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
27/10/2017 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
03/11/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)
10/11/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)
13/11/2017 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
13/11/2017 Written submissions (Ms H Hughes)
13/11/2017 Written submissions (Mr Kennett as amicus curiae)
15/11/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
20/11/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney v/link Melbourne)
06/12/2017 Publication of Reasons (Judgment summary)
11/12/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra v/link Melbourne & Sydney)
22/12/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney v/link Melbourne)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
The Court does not normally make AV recordings for interstate hearings. Given the public interest in this matter, the Court has made this video available even though it is of a lower-quality than we would normally produce.
Cases:
- Wilkie & Ors v. The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors
- Australian Marriage Equality Ltd & Anor v. Minister for Finance, Mathias Cormann & Anor
Date: 06 September 2017
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 29m
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.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
The Court does not normally make AV recordings for interstate hearings. Given the public interest in this matter, the Court has made this video available even though it is of a lower-quality than we would normally produce.
Cases:
- Wilkie & Ors v. The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors
- Australian Marriage Equality Ltd & Anor v. Minister for Finance, Mathias Cormann & Anor
Date: 05 September 2017
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 36m
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.
Pipikos v. Trayans
Case No.
A30/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/12/2016 Supreme Court of South Australia (Kourakis CJ, Kelly J & Hinton J)
Catchwords
Contracts – Enforceability – Past performance – Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) s 26 – Memorandum or note of agreement – Part performance – Where appellant alleges parties entered into oral agreement that appellant would pay share of deposit on property in exchange for respondent selling interest in another property – Where trial judge held no oral agreement existed – Where Full Court held agreement existed but unenforceable – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find appellant’s payment of deposit amounted to part performance sufficient to entitle appellant to enforce agreement – Whether Full Court erred in holding handwritten note not sufficient “memorandum or note” of agreement for purposes of s 26 – Whether Full Court erred in holding appellant not entitled to enforce agreement in circumstances where respondent acknowledged agreement – Whether Full Court erred in failing to consider concessions in handwritten note to identify acts of part performance.
Documents
18/08/2017 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne v/link Adelaide)
31/08/2017 Notice of appeal
22/09/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
22/09/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
23/10/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/11/2017 Reply (Appellant)
14/12/2017 Reply to cross appeal (Respondent)
15/03/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
15/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
15/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
12/09/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)