Shoalhaven City Council v. Firedam Civil Engineering Pty Limited
Case No.
S216/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/04/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)(Beazley JA, Campbell JA, Macfarlan JA)
Catchwords
Contracts — Building, engineering and related contracts — Settlement of disputes — Expert determination — Where express contractual obligation to give reasons in expert determination — Nature and extent of contractual obligation to give reasons — Whether expert determination contained inconsistency in reasons — Whether inconsistency in reasons means expert did not give reasons for determination as a whole — Whether inconsistency in reasons means contractual obligation not fulfilled and determination not binding on parties.
Documents
03/09/2010 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
23/09/2010 Notice of appeal
20/12/2010 Written submissions (Appellant)
20/12/2010 Chronology
22/12/2011 Submitting appearance (Respondent)
03/02/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
04/02/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/10/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Nicholas v. The Commonwealth of Australia and Anor
Case No.
S183/2010
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law — Operation and effect of Commonwealth Constitution — Plaintiff convicted by Australian Military Court of offences under Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) (“the Act”) on 25 August 2008 and sentenced accordingly — High Court of Australia declared provisions of the Act establishing Australian Military Court invalid on 26 August 2009: Lane v Morrison (2009) 239 CLR 230 — On 22 September 2009 Military Justice (Interim Measures) Act (No 2) 2009 (Cth) (“Interim Measures Act”) came into operation — Part 2 of Sch 1 of Interim Measures Act applies to punishments purportedly imposed by Australian Military Court prior to High Court decision — Pursuant to item 5, Sch 1 of Interim Measures Act rights and liabilities of plaintiff declared to be, and always to have been, same as if punishments purportedly imposed by Australian Military Court had been properly imposed by general court martial and certain other conditions satisfied — Rights and liabilities declared to be subject to any review provided for by Sch 1, Pt 7 — No review sought by plaintiff — Whether item 5, Sch 1 of Interim Measures Act valid law of Commonwealth — Military Justice (Interim Measures) Act (No 2) 2009 (Cth) Sch 1, item 5.
Documents
19/08/2010 Writ of summons
19/08/2010 Notice of constitutional matter
13/12/2010 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
13/01/2011 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
13/01/2011 Chronology
31/01/2011 Written submissions (First Defendant)
04/03/2011 Reply
29/03/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/08/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Momcilovic v. The Queen and Ors
Case No.
M134/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/03/2010 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal)(Maxwell P, Ashley & Neave JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Particular offences — Drug offences — Possession — — Where person deemed to be in possession of drugs “upon any land or premises” occupied by person, unless person satisfies court to the contrary: Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) (“the Act”) s 5 — Whether s 5 of the Act creates legal onus on accused to disprove possession on balance of probabilities or evidential onus to show that he or she was not in possession.
Criminal law — Appeal — Grounds of appeal — Conduct of trial judge — Misdirection or non-direction — Where drugs found in applicant’s home — Where applicant and her partner gave evidence that drugs were her partner’s and that applicant had no knowledge of them — Whether trial judge should have directed jury that prosecution must prove applicant’s knowledge of drugs in order to prove possession.
Human rights — Presumption of innocence — Statutory reversal of burden of proof of possession of drugs — Where Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (“Charter”) s 32 provides “[s]o far as it is possible to do so consistently with their purpose, all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights” — Whether “possible” to interpret s 5 of the Act compatibly with right to presumption of innocence — Charter ss 7(2), 25(1), 32(1).
Statutes — Acts of Parliament — Interpretation — Function of courts — Whether s 32 of Charter creates “special rule of interpretation” allowing court to depart from legislative intention of enacting Parliament to ensure compatibility with human rights — Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30.
Constitutional law — Operation and effect of Commonwealth Constitution — Chapter III — Federal jurisdiction of State courts — Local limitations of State court — Whether s 32 of the Charter confers a legislative function on State courts — Whether institutional integrity of State courts impaired — Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51.
High Court and Federal Court — High Court of Australia — Appellate jurisdiction — Where relief sought includes order setting aside declaration of inconsistent interpretation under s 36 of Charter made by intermediate appellate court — Whether High Court has jurisdiction under s 73 of Constitution to grant relief sought.
Documents
03/09/2010 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
24/09/2010 Notice of appeal
28/09/2010 Notice of constitutional matter
29/11/2010 Notice of constitutional matter
21/01/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
21/01/2011 Chronology
27/01/2011 Written submissions (First Respondent)
27/01/2011 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
27/01/2011 Written submissions (Third Respondent)
31/01/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
31/01/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia)
31/01/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales)
31/01/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia)
31/01/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General Australian Capital Territory)
31/01/2011 Written submissions (Seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae to Human Rights Law Resource Centre Ltd)
03/02/2011 Reply
08/02/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
09/02/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/02/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
17/02/2011 Additional written submissions (Appellant)
23/02/2011 Supplementary written submissions (Third Respondent)
01/03/2011 Supplementary written submissions (First Respondent)
03/03/2011 Supplementary written submissions (Second Respondent)
03/03/2011 Supplementary written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
18/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Appellant)
25/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia)
28/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (First Respondent)
28/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Second Respondent)
28/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Third Respondent)
28/03/2011 Joint submissions in answer to the Court's questions 1 to 3 (Second Respondent and the Attorneys-General for the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory)
28/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
28/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia)
28/03/2011 Submissions in answer to the Court's questions (Human Rights Law Resource Centre Ltd)
07/06/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
08/09/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
KPMG (a firm) v. Commonwealth of Australia and Anor
Case No.
M66/2010
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law — Operation and effect of Commonwealth Constitution — Powers with respect to property — Power to acquire property on just terms (Constitution s 51(xxxi)) — Acquisition of property — Where Australian Securities and Investment Commission (“ASIC”) has power to cause proceedings to be brought in the name of a company for recovery of damages or property in certain circumstances — Where ASIC caused proceedings to be brought against plaintiff in the name of various companies — Whether the commencement of proceedings in the name of a company by ASIC effects an acquisition of property on other than just terms — Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 50.
Documents
18/05/2010 Writ of summons
18/05/2010 Notice of constitutional matter
11/08/2010 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
06/01/2011 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
06/01/2011 Chronology
17/01/2011 Written submissions (Defendants)
27/01/2011 Reply
01/02/2011 Notice of Discontinuance
01/02/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
Jemena Asset Management (3) Pty Ltd and Ors v. Coinvest Limited
Case No.
M127/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/12/2009 Federal Court of Australia(Moore , Middleton & Gordon JJ)
Catchwords
Constitutional law — Operation and effect of Commonwealth Constitution — Inconsistency of laws (Constitution, s 109) — Commonwealth legislative scheme imposing obligation upon employers to pay for long service leave — State law imposing obligation upon employers in construction industry to contribute to fund for portable long service leave entitlements — Whether inconsistency between State and federal legislative schemes — Construction Industry Long Service Leave Act 1997 (Vic).
Documents
03/09/2010 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
20/09/2010 Notice of appeal
07/10/2010 Notice of constitutional matter
01/02/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/02/2011 Chronology
15/02/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
22/02/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
02/03/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/09/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)