Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union & Anor v. Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd
Case No.
P5/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/07/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Jagot and Lee JJ)
Catchwords
Industrial law – Employee and independent contractor – Proper test for distinguishing – Labour hire agreement – Definition of “employee” –Where second applicant signed Administrative Services Agreement with respondent labour hire agency and offered work cleaning and moving materials for builder – Where contract between second applicant and respondent for work, contract between respondent and builder for labour supply, but no contract between second applicant and respondent – Where builder “controlled” second applicant – Where arrangement of casual nature included right to reject assignment – Where second applicant not integrated into respondent’s business and not given uniform – Where work required personal service and second applicant not in business on own account – Where second applicant 22 -year old backpacker on working holiday visa – Where express term of contract categorises relationship not employment – Where applicants allege respondent contravened various National Employment Standards and s 45 of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by not paying second applicant in accordance with relevant award – Where Standards apply only if second applicant “employee” – Where primary judge, applying multi-factorial test, found second applicant not employee – Where Full Court preferred approach second applicant employee but for authority of intermediate appellate court in Personnel Contracting v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2004] WASCA 312 decided in similar circumstances, which Full Court held not plainly wrong – Whether second applicant “employee” of respondent – Whether, in triangular labour hire agreement, control test satisfied when second applicant controlled by builder and not respondent – Whether multi-factorial test correctly applied.
Documents*
12/02 /2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
25/02/2021 Notice of appeal
16/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellants)
16/04/2021 Chronology (Appellants)
18/05/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
04/06/2021 Reply
31/08/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra by video connection)
31/08/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
31/08/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
09/02/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd v. Clarence City Council & Anor
Australia Pacific Airports (Launceston) Pty Ltd v. Northern Midlands Council & Anor
Case No.
H2/2021; H3/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
06/08/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Jagot, Kerr and Anderson JJ)
Catchwords
Contracts – Privity of contract – Declaratory relief – Where second respondent Commonwealth registered proprietor of land leased to applicants – Where first respondent Councils not party to lease – Where cl 26.2(a) of lease provides amount equivalent to council rates to be paid to first respondents in respect of leased land – Where lease contemplates that first respondents will participate in mechanism in determining amount payable – Where dispute arose between applicants and first respondents as to amounts payable – Where first respondents sought declaratory and consequential relief with respect to proper construction of cl 26.2(a) – Where primary judge held first respondents did not have standing to seek declaratory relief on basis of privity of contract – Where first respondents successfully appealed to Full Federal Court, which held doctrine of privity only prevents third parties from obtaining executory judgment to enforce terms of contract, not declaratory judgment – Whether doctrine of privity prevents third parties from seeking declaratory relief – Whether third parties have standing to seek declaratory relief in respect of contract. Constitutional law – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Requirement for a “matter” – Jurisdiction of Federal Court – Where there is no dispute between contracting parties as to interpretation of contract – Whether first respondents have rights, duties or liabilities to be established by determination of a court – Whether there is a justiciable controversy or enforceable right, duty or liability to found a “matter”.
Documents
12/02/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
25/02/2021 Notice of appeal – H2/2021: Hobart International
26/02/2021 Notice of appeal – H3/2021: Australia Pacific Airports
16/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellant - Hobart International)
16/04/2021 Chronology (Appellant - Hobart International)
16/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellant - Australia Pacific Airports)
16/04/2021 Chronology (Appellant - Australia Pacific Airports)
14/05/2021 Written submissions (First respondents - Joint Hobart International & Australia Pacific Airports)
14/05/2021 Written submissions (Second respondent - Australia Pacific Airports)
14/05/2021 Written submissions (Second respondent - Hobart International)
04/06/2021 Reply (to first respondent's submissions - Hobart International)
04/06/2021 Reply (to second respondent's submissions - Hobart International)
04/06/2021 Reply (to first respondent's submissions - Australia Pacific Airports)
04/06/2021 Reply (to second respondent's submissions - Australia Pacific Airports)
10/08/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) VACATED
12/10/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/10/2021 Outlines of oral argument (Appellant - Hobart International)
12/10/2021 Outlines of oral argument (Appellant - Australia Pacific Airports)
12/10/2021 Outlines of oral argument (First Respondent - joint)
12/10/2021 Outlines of oral argument (Second Respondent - joint)
18/10/2021 Supplementary written submissions (First respondents - joint)
28/10/2021 Supplementary written submissions (Second respondents - joint)
01/11/2021 Supplementary written submissions (Appellant - Hobart International)
01/11/2021 Supplementary written submissions (Appellant - Australia Pacific Airports)
09/03/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
H. Lundbeck A/S & Anor v. Sandoz Pty Ltd
CNS Pharma Pty Ltd v. Sandoz Pty Ltd
Case Nos.
S22/2021; S23/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
04/08/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Nicholas, Yates and Beach JJ)
Catchwords
Patents – Patent extension – Contract construction – Where s 79 of Patents Act 1990 (Cth) provides if patentee applies for extension of term of patent and patent expires before application determined and extension is granted, patentee has same rights to commence infringement proceedings during extension period as if extension had been granted when alleged infringement was done –Where applicants patentee and exclusive licensees of pharmaceutical compound – Where patent expired in 13 June 2009 – Where, on 25 June 2014, patent extension granted to 9 December 2012 – Where, from 15 June 2009 onwards, respondent supplied generic version of compound – Where, in 2007, patentee and respondent entered into Settlement Agreement, giving respondent licence to exploit patent prior to expiry – Where Agreement specified possible commencement dates of licence conditioned on whether extension granted, but did not specify end date – Where applicants commenced infringement proceedings in Federal Court on 26 June 2014 in respect of acts done during extension period – Where Federal Court held Agreement gave licence only for two weeks prior to original expiry date (31 May 2009) until original expiry (13 June 2009) but not extension period – Where respondent successfully appealed to Full Court, which held Agreement gave licence from 31 May 2009 to extended expiry date (9 December 2012) – Whether licence applied in relation to acts occurring after patent original expiry date and before term extended – Whether, on respondent’s construction, Agreement produced commercially nonsensical result – Whether exclusive licensee may commence infringement proceeding for acts done between original date of expiry and date on which term subsequently extended.
Documents
11/02/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
24/02/2021 Notice of appeal – S22/2021
25/02/2021 Notice of appeal – S23/2021
15/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellants - H. Lundbeck)
15/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellant - CNS Pharma)
15/04/2021 Joint Chronology (Appellants)
13/05/2021 Written submissions (Respondent - H. Lundbeck)
13/05/2021 Written submissions (Respondent - CNS Pharma)
03/06/2021 Reply (S22/2021)
03/06/2021 Reply (S23/2021)
04/08/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) VACATED
08/10/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/10/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellants - joint)
08/10/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent - H. Lundbeck)
08/10/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent - CNS Pharma)
09/03/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Hamilton (a pseudonym) v. The Queen
Case No.
S24/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
27/04/2020 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Macfarlan JA; Adamson and Beech-Jones JJ)
Catchwords
Evidence – Tendency evidence – Jury directions – Where applicant charged with ten counts of aggravated indecent assault against three separate complainants – Where trial judge ruled evidence from complainants admissible but not cross-admissible for tendency purposes – Where anti-tendency direction not given – Where Court of Criminal Appeal held anti-tendency direction not necessary as applicant had not established risk of jury engaging in tendency reasoning – Where Court of Criminal Appeal found defence counsel made deliberate decision not to request anti-tendency direction to obtain forensic advantage – Whether anti-tendency direction generally be given in multi-complainant trial – Whether miscarriage of justice occasioned by failure to direct jury it was prohibited from using evidence led in support of each count as tendency evidence in support of other counts.
Documents
11/02/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
24/02/2021 Notice of appeal
15/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
15/04/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
13/05/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
27/05/2021 Reply
22/06/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
22/06/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
22/06/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
03/11/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Walton & Anor v ACN 004 410 833 Ltd (formerly Arrium Ltd) (in liquidation) & Ors
Case No.
S20/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/07/2020 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bathurst CJ, Bell P; Leeming JA)
Catchwords
Corporations – Examinations relating to insolvency – Abuse of process – Where s 596A of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) requires court to issue examinations summons to a person about a company if “eligible applicant” applies for summons – Where “eligible applicants” include persons authorised by Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”) – Where ASIC can only authorise person if person’s purpose is for benefit of corporation, its contributories or its creditors – Where applicants shareholders of respondent – Where, in 2014, respondent successfully completed capital raising for purpose of paying down debt – Where respondent entered into voluntary administration in 2016 and liquidation in 2019 – Where ASIC authorised applicants as “eligible applicants” to conduct examinations of respondent’s directors and officers – Where NSW Court of Appeal found applicants’ predominant purpose investigation and pursuit of shareholders’ private claim against directors in relation to 2014 capital raising – Where Court of Appeal held fulfilment of that purpose would not confer benefit on corporation, creditors or contributories, and therefore offensive to purpose for which s 596A enacted and abuse of process – Whether implicit purpose of obtaining information about potential misconduct is beneficial to corporation – Whether applicants’ purposes offensive or foreign to s 596A.
Documents
11/02/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
24/02/2021 Notice of appeal
15/04/2021 Written submissions (Appellants)
15/04/2021 Chronology (Appellants)
13/05/2021 Written submissions (First respondent)
13/05/2021 Written submissions (Second respondent)
03/06/2021 Reply
11/08/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) VACATED
06/10/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra by video connection) (Audio-visual recording)
06/10/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
06/10/2021 Outline of oral argument (First respondent)
06/10/2021 Outline of oral argument (Second respondent)
07/10/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra by video connection) (Audio-visual recording)
16/02/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)