Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Date: 05 March 2021
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 3hrs 08m
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.
Stubbings v. Jams 2 Pty Ltd & Ors
Case No.
M13/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
05/08/2020 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Beach, Kyrou and Hargrave JJA)
Catchwords
Equity – Unconscionable conduct – Wilful blindness – Where applicant borrowed from respondent lenders secured only on applicant’s assets – Where applicant without regular income and defaulted – Where respondents’ system of asset-based lending included deliberate intention to avoid receipt of information about personal and financial circumstances of borrower or guarantor –Where certificate of independent financial advice given in respect of transaction – Where respondents brought proceedings for possession of applicant’s assets – Where primary judge found respondents wilfully blind and had actual knowledge as to applicant’s personal and financial circumstances – Where respondents successfully appealed to Court of Appeal, which overturned primary judge’s findings as to knowledge – Whether lender’s conduct unconscionable by engaging in system of asset-based lending without receipt of information about personal or financial situation of borrower, or alternatively, wilfully or recklessly failing to make such enquiries an honest and reasonable person would make – Whether Court of Appeal entitled to overturn findings of primary judge as to respondents’ knowledge.
Documents
12/02/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
26/02/2021 Notice of appeal
16/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
16/04/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
28/05/2021 Written submissions (Respondents)
18/06/2021 Reply
14/10/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/10/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
14/10/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
16/03/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v. Jamsek & Ors
Case No.
S27/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/07/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Perram, Wigney and Anderson JJ)
Catchwords
Industrial law – Employee and contractor – Proper test for distinguishing – Multi-factorial test – Where respondents commenced employment with applicants as truck drivers in 1980 – Where, in 1985, applicants and respondents agreed respondents would become contractors – Where respondents formed partnerships with respective wives, purchased truck from applicants and executed written contract with applicants to provide delivery services – Where respondents worked exclusively for and derived sole income from applicants for nearly forty years, and contract expressly permitted respondents to service other clients – Where respondents required to be available to work during set hours – Where impractical for respondents to work for or generate goodwill with other clients – Where respondents required to purchase truck to retain work, display company logo on truck and wear branded clothing – Where respondents responsible for upkeep, maintenance and insurance of trucks – Where respondents paid by invoice and charged GST to applicants – Where respondents conducted partnerships as one would expect of business - Where contract terminated in 2017 – Where respondents unsuccessfully claimed in Federal Court for unpaid employee entitlements under various statutory regimes and Federal Court held respondents “contractors” – Where respondents successfully appealed to Full Court, which held respondents “employees” – Whether respondents “employees” for purposes of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) and “workers” for purpose of Long Service Leave Act 1955 (NSW).
Documents*
12/02/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
26/02/2021 Notice of appeal
16/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellants)
16/04/2021 Chronology (Appellants)
18/05/2021 Written submissions (New South Wales Business Chamber Limited, amicus curiae)
28/05/2021 Written submissions (Respondents)
18/06/2021 Reply
01/09/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra by video connection)
01/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
01/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
09/02/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Charisteas v. Charisteas & Ors
Case No.
P6/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
10/07/2020 Family Court of Australia (Alstergren CJ, Strickland and Ryan JJ)
Catchwords
Family law – Appeals – Apprehension of bias – Where parties involved in protracted proceedings since 2008, including two trials in Family Court of Western Australia where orders were set aside by Full Court of Family Court of Australia – Where primary judge in third trial engaged in undisclosed communication and personal contact with then-counsel for respondent prior to commencement of trial and after judgment reserved but before judgment delivered –Where fact but not full details of communication subsequently dis closed after applicant became aware of relationship between primary judge and respondent counsel – Where applicant unsuccessfully applied to have judge recused and unsuccessfully appealed to Full Court – Where Full Court held hypothetical observer would not have reasonable apprehension of bias because would accept judge may have mistaken views about proprietary of private communications after judgment reserved but before judgment delivered and would tolerate some amount of private communication – Whether hypothetical observer would have reasonable apprehension of bias from failure to disclose communications between primary judge and respondent counsel.
Family law – Practice and procedure – Powers under s 79 of Family Court Act 1975 (Cth) (“Act”) – Where, in 2011 trial judgment, primary judge made final orders under s 79 – Where some orders set aside without remitter by 2013 appeal to Full Court – Where primary judge in third trial made 2015 interlocutory interpretation decision that power to make orders under s 79 not exhausted – Where primary judge made orders in 2017 varying 2011 orders – Where Full Court held primary judge had power to vary or set aside2011 orders – Whether, when orders made in exercise of statutory power and some set aside on appeal without remittal or rehearing, power under s 79 is exhausted – Whether primary judge acting in excess of jurisdiction – Whether applicant waived right to challenge exercise of power because did not appeal 2015 interpretation decision.
Documents*
12/02/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
26/02/2021 Notice of appeal
16/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
16/04/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
14/05/2021 Written submissions (First respondent)
02/09/2021 Amended Reply
17/06/2021 Written submissions (Fourth respondent)
03/09/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra and by video connection)
02/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
03/09/2021 Outline of oral argument (First respondent)
06/10/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Addy v. Commissioner of Taxation
Case No.
S25/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
06/08/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Davies, Derrrington and Steward JJ)
Catchwords
Taxation – Double taxation treaty – Non-discrimination clause – Where Art 25 of Australia and United Kingdom Double Taxation Treaty provides foreign nationals shall not be subjected to more burdensome tax treatment compared to hypothetical Australian national in same circumstances – Where applicant citizen of United Kingdom and holder of working holiday visa – Where working holiday visa-holders subject to special working holiday tax rate in Pt III of Sch 7 of Income Tax Rates Act 1986 (Cth) – Where applicant taxed $3,986 compared to $1,591.44 by Australian national on same income – Where applicant selected as test case by respondent Commissioner – Where Federal Court held applicant entitled to benefit of Art 25 – Where respondent successfully appealed to Full Court – Whether applicant subject to more burdensome taxation by reason of nationality – If so, whether applicant Australian resident for tax purposes.
Documents
11/02/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
25/02/2021 Notice of appeal
15/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
15/04/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
13/05/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
27/05/2021 Reply
24/06/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
24/06/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
24/06/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
03/11/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)