Shafron v. Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Case No.
S173/2011
Related matters:
S174-S181/2011 – ASIC v. Shafron & Ors
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/12/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)
Catchwords
Corporations — Management and administration — Evidence — Misleading announcement sent to Australian Stock Exchange ("ASX") — At trial, Australian Securities and Investments Commission ("ASIC") failed to call solicitor ("Mr Robb") advising James Hardie Industries Ltd ("JHIL") who attended meeting of Board of Directors — Trial judge made adverse findings and declarations of contravention against first to eighth respondents — Whether ASIC obliged to call particular witnesses pursuant to obligation of fairness — Whether ASIC failed to discharge burden of proving that JHIL Board passed Draft ASX Announcement resolution — Whether ASIC obliged to call Mr Robb to give evidence of firm's receipt of Draft ASX Announcement — Whether ASIC's failure to comply with obligations, if extant, had negative evidentiary impact on ASIC's case — Whether certain oral evidence of respondents Brown and Koffel ought to have been accepted as correlating with terms of Draft ASX Announcement — Whether ASIC failed to prove that JHIL Board passed resolution approving tabled ASX Announcement — Whether of evidentiary significance that company associated with respondent O'Brien produced to ASIC identical version of Draft ASX Announcement — Whether evidence of JHIL company secretary that practice of retaining versions of announcements approved for market release did not relate to period of release of misleading announcement — Whether reliability and weight to be attributed to Board minutes open to question — Whether declarations of contravention made in respect of first to eighth respondents should be set aside — Whether, in respect of Shafron cross-appeal: Shafron was an officer of JHIL who participated in decisions affecting the business of JHIL; Shafron's responsibilities as company secretary and general counsel fell within scope of duty of care and diligence imposed on him as an "officer" by s 180(1) of Corporations Law and Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("Acts"); Shafron's conduct was in his capacity as JHIL company secretary; Shafron breached s 180(1) of the Acts.
Documents
13/05/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
25/05/2011 Notice of appeal
17/06/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/06/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
20/07/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
03/08/2011 Amended Chronology (Appellant)
12/08/2011 Reply
24/10/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)
25/10/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
26/10/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
27/10/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
03/05/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Strong v. Woolworths Limited T/as Big W and Anor
Case No.
S172/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
26/11/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)
Catchwords
Torts — Negligence — Causation — Onus — Applicant slipped on chip and fell in area of shopping centre where respondent had exclusive right to conduct sidewalk sales — Whether causation established — Whether s 5D(1) of Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("CLA") excludes consideration of material contribution to harm and increase in risk — Whether applicant demonstrated lack of adequate cleaning system responsible for debris on centre floor — CLA, ss 5D, 5E.
Documents
13/05/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
24/05/2011 Notice of appeal
10/06/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
10/06/2011 Chronology
01/07/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
08/07/2011 Reply
05/08/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/04/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
BBH v. The Queen
Case No.
B76/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/10/2007 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Appeal and new trial — Evidence — Applicant found guilty by jury of maintaining indecent relationship with child under 16, indecent treatment of child under 16 and sodomy of a person under 18 — Complainant was applicant's daughter — Whether evidence of complainant's brother, who provided innocent explanation for an event held to be evidence of discreditable conduct, properly put before jury in circumstances where complainant gave no evidence about the event — Whether test for admissibility in Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 applies to evidence of discreditable conduct — If so, whether admissibility test applicable.
Documents
24/12/2010 Application for special leave to appeal
13/05/2011 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by v/link to Brisbane)
10/06/2011 Written submissions (Applicant)
10/06/2011 Chronology (Applicant)
01/07/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
11/07/2011 Reply
07/09/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
28/03/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Stoten v. The Queen
Hargraves v. The Queen
Case No.
B24/2011; B28/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/11/2010 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal)
Catchwords
Constitutional law — Trial by jury — Section 668E(1A) of Criminal Code (Q) ("proviso") allows court to dismiss appeal where points raised by appellant might be decided in appellant's favour if court considers no substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred — Applicants found guilty by jury of conspiracy to defraud Commonwealth — Court of Appeal found errors in directions given to jury but applied proviso and dismissed appeal — Whether application of proviso inconsistent with s 80 of Commonwealth Constitution — Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300.
Criminal law — Appeal and new trial — Procedural fairness —Whether directions at trial constituted denial of procedural fairness — Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account direction concerning applicants' interests in subject matter of evidence in applying proviso — Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300.
Words and phrases — "procedural fairness".
Documents
13/05/2011 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by v/link to Brisbane)
26/05/2011 Notice of appeal (Stoten)
26/05/2011 Notice of constitutional matter (Stoten)
27/05/2011 Notice of appeal (Hargraves)
27/05/2011 Notice of constitutional matter (Hargraves)
10/06/2011 Written submissions (Stoten)
10/06/2011 Chronology (Stoten)
17/06/2011 Written submissions (Hargraves)
17/06/2011 Chronology (Hargraves)
08/07/2011 Written submissions (Stoten - Respondent)
08/07/2011 Written submissions (Hargraves - Respondent)
25/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
25/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for Victoria intervening)
25/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of Queensland intervening)
26/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for New South Wales intervening)
29/07/2011 Reply (Stoten)
02/08/2011 Reply (Hargraves)
06/09/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
26/10/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Handlen v. The Queen
Paddison v. The Queen
Case No.
B26/2011; B27/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/12/2010 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal)
Catchwords
Constitutional law — Trial by jury — Section 668E(1A) of Criminal Code (Q) ("proviso") allows court to dismiss appeal where points raised by appellant might be decided in appellant's favour if court considers no substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred — Applicants found guilty by jury of drug offences in contravention of Criminal Code (Cth) ("Code") — Court of Appeal found case put to jury "in terms alien to the forms of criminal responsibility" recognised by Code and applicants only criminally responsible as aiders under s 11.2 of Code — Court of Appeal applied proviso — Whether failure to put case against applicants to jury on correct basis of criminal liability a substantial miscarriage of justice — Whether s 80 of Commonwealth Constitution precluded application of proviso.
Criminal law — Appeal and new trial — Miscarriage of justice —Whether failure to put case against applicants to jury on correct basis of criminal liability a substantial miscarriage of justice — Whether s 80 of Commonwealth Constitution precluded application of proviso.
Words and phrases — "substantial miscarriage of justice".
Documents
13/05/2011 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by v/link to Brisbane)
27/05/2011 Notice of appeal
27/05/2011 Notice of constitutional matter (Appellant)
15/06/2011 Written submissions (Paddision)
15/06/2011 Chronology (Paddison)
16/06/2011 Written submissions (Handlen)
16/06/2011 Chronology (Handlen)
01/07/2011 Written submissions (Handlen - Respondent)
01/07/2011 Written submissions (Paddison - Respondent)
25/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
25/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for Victoria intervening)
25/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of Queensland intervening)
26/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for New South Wales intervening)
03/08/2011 Reply (Joint for Handlen and Paddison)
06/09/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
08/12/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)