Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v. Voller
Nationwide News Pty Limited v. Voller
Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v. Voller
Case No.
S236/2020, S237/2020, S238/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
01/06/2020 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Basten & Meagher JJA, Simpson AJA)
Catchwords
Defamation – Publication – Where applicants created and operated public Facebook pages on which Facebook users can view and comment on items posted – Where Facebook users posted comments on applicants’ Facebook posts – Where respondent commenced defamation proceedings against applicants – Where primary judge determined separate question – Where NSW Court of Appeal dismissed appeal from determination – Whether intention to communicate defamatory material is necessary for person to be “publisher” – Whether operators of Facebook pages “publish” third-party comments posted on page prior to being aware of comments.
Documents
08/12/2020 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
21/12/2020 Notices of appeal
17/02/2021 Written submissions (Appellants - joint)
17/02/2021 Chronology (Appellants - joint)
17/03/2021 Written submissions (Respondent - joint)
07/04/2021 Reply
18/05/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
18/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellants - joint)
18/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent - joint)
08/09/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Edwards v. The Queen
Case No.
S235/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
03/04/2020 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Leeming JA, Johnson & Harrison JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Prosecution’s duty of disclosure – Unreasonable verdict – Where applicant charged with sexual offences against child – Where applicant’s mobile phone seized and contents downloaded – Where prosecution disclosed existence of download and offered to provide applicant with copy of downloaded data – Where data was not provided to applicant – Where prosecution did not disclose relevance of download data – Where prosecution case on two counts relied on evidence of complainant – Where defence case on same counts relied on documentary evidence contradicting complainant’s evidence – Where NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (“CCA”) dismissed appeal against conviction –Whether prosecutor breached duty of disclosure by not providing download data to applicant, contrary to s 142 of Criminal Procedure Act 1987 (NSW) – Whether CCA erred in concluding verdicts on two counts not unreasonable as there remained reasonable doubt as to existence of opportunity for offending to have occurred.
Documents
08/12/2020 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
18/12/2020 Notice of appeal
05/02/2021 Written submissions (Appellant - further redacted)
05/02/2021 Chronology (Appellant - further redacted)
08/03/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
17/03/2021 Reply
19/05/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
19/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
19/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
06/10/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
WorkPac Pty Ltd v. Rossato & Ors
Case No.
B73/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
20/05/2020 Federal Court of Australia (Bromberg, White & Wheelahan JJ)
Catchwords
Industrial law – Characterisation as “casual employee” – Restitution – Where Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) contains National Employment Standards (NES) – Where NES provide that permanent employees entitled to certain leave entitlements – Where first respondent employed under contract describing him as “casual employee” – Where first respondent employed for indefinite period with regular and predictable shifts – Where first respondent’s hours set far in advance and where he was not given option to elect not to work particular shifts – Where first respondent paid casual loading in lieu of leave entitlements – Where applicant sought declarations that respondent not entitled to leave – Where Full Court of Federal Court dismissed application – Whether respondent is a “casual employee” for the purposes of Fair Work Act or enterprise agreement – If not, whether applicant is entitled to apply casual loading paid to first respondent in satisfaction of his leave entitlements by way of set-off, restitution or by reg 2.03A of Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth).
Documents
26/11/2020 Determination (SLA, Sydney video connection Melbourne)
10/12/2020 Notice of appeal
21/01/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
21/01/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
12/02/2021 Written submissions (Second respondent)
18/02/2021 Written submissions (First respondent)
18/02/2021 Written submissions (Third respondent)
18/02/2021 Written submissions (Fourth respondent)
11/03/2021 Reply
12/05/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
12/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (First respondent)
12/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Second respondent)
13/05/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Third respondent)
13/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Fourth respondent)
04/08/2021 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
Chetcuti v. Commonwealth of Australia
Case No.
M122/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
26/11/2020 High Court of Australia (Nettle J)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Legislative power – Naturalisation and aliens – Where appellant entered Australia in 1948 – Where appellant was born in Malta and entered Australia as British subject – Where appellant became citizen of United Kingdom and Colonies in 1949 and citizen of Malta on 1961 – Whether within power of Commonwealth Parliament to treat appellant as alien within s 51(xix) of Constitution – Whether within power of Parliament to specify criteria for alienage – Whether appellant entered Australia as alien.
Documents
10/12/2020 Notice of appeal
05/03/2021 Written submissions (Appellant)
05/03/2021 Chronology (Appellant)
02/04/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
15/04/2021 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
22/04/2021 Written submissions (Respondent, in reply to intervener's submissions)
29/04/2021 Reply
11/05/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
11/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
11/05/2021 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
12/08/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: The Commissioner of Taxation for the Commonwealth of Australia v. Travelex Limited
Date: 02 December 2020
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 3h 2m
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.