Equuscorp Pty Ltd (formerly Equus Financial Services Ltd) v. Haxton (M128/2010)
Equuscorp Pty Ltd (formerly Equus Financial Services Ltd) v. Bassat (M129/2010)
Equuscorp Pty Ltd (formerly Equus Financial Services Ltd) v. Cunningham’s Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd (M130, M131 & M132/2010)
Case Nos.
M128/2010
M129/2010
M130-132/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/01/2010 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal)(Ashley J, Neave J, Dodds-Streeton J)
Catchwords
Restitution — Restitution resulting from unenforceable, incomplete, illegal or void contracts — Recovery of money paid or property transferred — Respondents investors in tax driven blueberry farming schemes — Funds for farm management fees lent to investors by Rural Finance Ltd (“Rural”) — Applicant lent money to Rural — Rural subsequently wound up — Loan contracts between respondents and Rural assigned to applicant — Applicant’s enforcement of contractual debts statute-barred — Where parties agreed in court below loan contracts illegal and unenforceable — Whether total failure of consideration — Whether respondents’ retention of loan funds “unjust”.
Restitution — Assignment of rights of restitution — Where Deed of Assignment assigning Rural’s loans to applicant included assignment of “legal right to such debts … and all legal and other remedies” — Whether rights of restitution able to be assigned — Whether rights of restitution assigned in this case.
Documents
03/09/2010 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
22/09/2010 Notice of appeal
01/02/2011 Written submissions & chronology - M128/2010 Haxton (Appellant)
01/02/2011 Written submissions & chronology - M129/2010 Bassat (Appellant)
01/02/2011 Written submissions & chronology - M130/2010 Cunningham's (Appellant)
01/02/2011 Written submissions & chronology - M131/2010 Cunningham's (Appellant)
01/02/2011 Written submissions & chronology - M132/2010 Cunningham's (Appellant)
15/02/2011 Written submissions - M128/2010 Haxton (Respondent)
15/02/2011 Written submissions - M129/2010 Bassat (Respondent)
15/02/2011 Written submissions - M130/2010 Cunningham's (Respondent)
15/02/2011 Written submissions - M131/2010 Cunningham's (Respondent)
15/02/2011 Written submissions - M132/2010 Cunningham's (Respondent)
22/02/2011 Reply - M128/2010
22/02/2011 Reply - M129/2010
22/02/2011 Reply - M130/2010
22/02/2011 Reply - M131/2010
22/02/2011 Reply - M132/2010
09/03/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/03/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
08/03/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v. Poniatowska
Case No.
A20/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
2/08/2010 Supreme Court of South Australia(Doyle CJ, Duggan J, Sulan J)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Offences — Obtain financial advantage from Commonwealth, knowing of lack of entitlement: s 135.2 Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) — Respondent failed to declare $71,000 in commission payments while receiving parenting benefit from Centrelink — Whether omitting to perform act a physical element of offence — Whether existence of legal duty or obligation to perform act, imposed by offence provision or other Commonwealth statute, determinative of question about physical element — Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ss 4.3 and 135.2.
Words and phrases — “engages in conduct”.
Documents
16/08/2010 Application for special leave to appeal
12/11/2010 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
01/02/2011 Written submissions (Applicant)
01/02/2011 Chronology
15/02/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
22/02/2011 Reply
03/03/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
26/10/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
White v. Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Western Australia
Case No.
P44/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
12/03/2010 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal)(McClure J, Owen, J Buss J)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Procedure — Confiscation of proceeds of crime and related matters — Restraining or freezing order — Where applicants did not own and have effective control of property where offences committed — Where freezing orders made over applicants’ property in place of property where offences took place: Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA) (“the Act”) s 22 — Whether property where offences took place was “crime-used” property as defined by s 146 of the Act — Scope of court’s power to set aside a freezing order under s 82 of the Act — Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA) s 22.
Words and phrases — “crime-used”, “criminal use”.
Documents
21/10/2010 Hearing (SLA, Perth)
10/11/2010 Notice of appeal
01/02/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/02/2011 Chronology
15/02/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
22/02/2011 Reply
04/03/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
08/06/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v. Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 110 693 251) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
Case No.
P43/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
24/05/2010 Federal Court of Australia(North J, Siopis J, Buchanan J)
Catchwords
Corporations — Winding up — Winding up in insolvency — Where respondent presumed to be insolvent once receiver was appointed: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459C — Where respondent required to rebut presumption in an application for winding up in insolvency — Respondent disputed extent of indebtedness — Whether company should be wound-up on basis of disputed debt — Whether court may determine merits of disputed debt in course of winding up proceeding.
Documents
21/10/2010 Hearing (SLA, Perth)
08/11/2010 Notice of appeal
31/01/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
31/01/2011 Chronology
15/02/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
22/02/2011 Reply
08/03/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
16/03/2011 Further submissions (Respondent)
22/03/2011 Reply supplementary submissions (Appellant)
01/06/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Deguisa & Anor v. Lynn & Ors
Case No.
A4/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
05/09/2019 Supreme Court of South Australia (Kourakis CJ, Peek and Hughes JJ)
Catchwords
Real property – Torrens title – Restrictive covenants – Where appellants registered proprietors of Lot 3 and have planning development approval to demolish house on Lot 3, subdivide lot, and build two single story dwellings – Where respondents executors of estate of Mrs Fielder who was party to original Memorandum of Encumbrance containing restrictive covenants subject of proceedings – Where third respondent owns two properties near Lot 3 – Where respondents contended that Lot 3 and 53 other lots were created from earlier subdivision and sold in accordance with building scheme such that restrictive covenants are enforceable to prevent appellants from developing Lot 3 as they wish to – Whether there exists “governing principle” to effect that what is “notified” to prospective purchaser by vendor’s certificate of title is everything that would have come to their knowledge if prudent conveyancer had made such searches as ought reasonably to have been made based on what appears on certificate of title – Whether approach taken by majority of Full Court of Supreme Court of South Australia in decision under appeal to ascertaining whether subsequent purchaser of Torrens system land is bound by restrictive covenant conflicts with approach taken in Burke v Yurilla (1991) 56 SASR 382 – Whether purchaser of land under Torrens system obliged to search other titles for evidence of land being subject of building scheme if note is made on encumbrance form that the “encumbrance forms portion of a common building scheme” but where land or lots involved in building scheme not indicated.
Documents
20/03/2020 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Adelaide)
03/04/2020 Notice of appeal
08/05/2020 Chronology (Appellants)
11/05/2020 Amended written submissions (Appellants)
11/06/2020 Written submissions (Respondents)
02/07/2020 Reply
02/09/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
02/09/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
02/09/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
04/11/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)