Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Mineralogy Pty Ltd & Anor v State of Western Australia; Palmer v The State of Western Australia
Date: 15 June 2021
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 03m
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.
Kozarov v. State of Victoria
Case No.
M36/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
24/11/2020 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Beach, Kaye JJA & Macaulay J)
[2020] VSCA 301 ; [2020] VSCA 316
Catchwords
Torts – Negligence – Causation – Where applicant worked in Serious Sex Offenders Unit (SSOU) of Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) – Where work in SSOU required applicant to deal with confronting material of graphic sexual nature – Where, on 11 August 2011, applicant took sick leave for symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but was not diagnosed and returned to work on 29 August 2011 – Where, on return, applicant was involved in dispute with manager and stated she did not wish to be rotated to different unit within OPP – Where, on 9 February 2012, applicant emailed manager requesting she be rotated out of SSOU due to effect of SSOU work on her health, but request was not actioned – Where primary judge held respondent was put on notice as to risks to applicant’s health in August 2011 – Where primary judge made inference that timely welfare enquiry by respondent would have revealed applicant’s PTSD and, if applicant had been made aware of her condition, she would have consented to be rotated out of SSOU – Where primary judge held respondent failed to discharge duty of care in August 2011 by not making welfare enquiry and not rotating applicant out of SSOU – Where Court of Appeal overturned primary judge’s inference that applicant would have consented to be rotated out and held that applicant’s own actions in not consenting to be rotated out caused injury rather than respondent’s actions – Where Court of Appeal did not address primary judge’s finding that return to work after February 2012 caused applicant injury – Where Court of Appeal allowed respondent’s appeal – Whether open to Court of Appeal to overturn primary judge’s finding that if duty of care had been discharged in August 2011, applicant would have consented to be rotated out of SSOU – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider injury caused by return to work after February 2012.
Documents*
21/05/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
04/06/2021 Notice of appeal
09/07/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
09/07/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
06/08/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
27/08/2021 Reply
02/12/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
02/12/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
02/12/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
13/04/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v. Pattinson & Anor
Case No.
M34/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/10/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Besanko, White, Wigney & Bromwich JJ)
Catchwords
Industrial law – Civil penalties – Determination of appropriate penalty – Where s 349(1) of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provided unlawful for person to knowingly or recklessly make false or misleading representation about another person’s obligation to engage in industrial activity – Where second respondent union had “no ticket no start” policy and respondents carried out policy by representing to two workers they could not work unless joined union – Where respondents admitted liability for two contraventions of s 349(1) – Where second respondent well-resourced and, since 2000, had breached pecuniary penalty provisions on more than 150 occasions, including at least 15 occasions involving “no ticket no start” policy and 7 previous contraventions of s 349(1) – Where primary judge considered statutory maximum penalty required to sufficiently deter respondents in light of previous contraventions and imposed maximum – Where respondents appealed to Full Federal Court, which held maximum penalty must only be imposed for most serious and grave contravening conduct and imposed lower penalty – Whether statutory maximum penalty must only be imposed for most serious and grave contravening conduct – Whether statutory maximum penalty can be imposed if necessary to deter contravening conduct.
Documents*
20/05/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
03/06/2021 Notice of appeal
08/07/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/07/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
05/08/2021 Written submissions (Respondents)
26/08/2021 Reply
07/12/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/12/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
07/12/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
13/04/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller; Nationwide News Pty Limited v Voller; Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller
Date: 18 May 2021
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 27m
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.
George v. The State of Western Australia
Case No.
P45/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
01/09/2020 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) (Quinlan CJ, Mazza and Mitchell JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Jury directions – Right to silence – Where applicant charged with indecently dealing with child between ages 13 and 16 years, contrary to s 321(4) of Criminal Code (WA) – Where prosecution adduced evidence of investigating police officer, who gave evidence of electronic record of interview in which appellant denied offences and gave alternative account, and tendered record of interview – Where applicant did not give or adduce any evidence at trial – Where applicant’s submissions were prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of offence – Where trial judge failed to warn jury that applicant’s silence could not be used as evidence against him, does not constitute admission, could not be used to fill gaps in prosecution’s evidence and could not be used as a make-weight in assessing whether prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (Azzopardi direction) – Where majority of WA Court of Appeal held absence of Azzopardi direction not miscarriage of justice – Whether miscarriage of justice occurred because of absence of Azzopardi direction.
Documents*
28/09/2020 Application for special leave to appeal
20/05/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
24/06/2021 Written submissions (Applicant)
24/06/2021 Chronology (Applicant)
21/07/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
12/08/2021 Reply
08/12/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (including pronouncement of orders) (Audio-visual recording)
08/12/2021 Outline of oral argument (Applicant)
08/12/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)