Northern Land Council & Anor v. Quall & Anor
Case No.
D21/2019
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/06/2019 Federal Court of Australia (Griffiths J, Mortimer J, White J)
[2019] FCAFC 77 and [2019] FCAFC 101
Catchwords
Administrative law – Delegation of statutory functions and powers –Administrative necessity – Statutory interpretation – Where proceedings at first instance challenged certification of application to register Kenbi Indigenous Land Use Agreement on ground that it had been done without “delegated authority” – Where Full Court held Pt 11 of Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) evinced intention that certification functions could not be delegated – Whether Northern Land Council had power to delegate its certification functions under s 203BE(1)(b) of Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to its Chief Executive Officer.
Documents
15/11/2019 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
29/11/2019 Notice of appeal
17/01/2020 Written submissions (Appellants)
17/01/2020 Chronology (Appellants)
31/01/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Commonwealth seeking leave to intervene)
31/01/2020 Written submissions (Northern Territory of Australia intervening)
24/02/2020 Written submissions (Respondents)
05/03/2020 Reply
12/08/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
12/08/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
12/08/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
12/08/2020 Outline of oral argument (Northern Territory of Australia intervening)
12/08/2020 Outline of oral argument (amended) (Attorney-General for the Commonwealth intervening)
13/08/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/10/2020 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
Calidad Pty Ltd & Ors v. Seiko Epson Corporation & Anor
Case No.
S329/2019
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
5/07/2019 Federal Court of Australia (Greenwood, Jagot, Yates JJ)
Catchwords
Intellectual property – Patents – Implied licence – Where Calidad imports and sells printer cartridges modified by third party – Where Seiko Epson claims its two patents infringed by Calidad’s conduct – Whether Full Court erred in finding infringement – Whether modifications made to printer cartridges resulted in making of "new" printer cartridges embodying invention as claimed in claim 1 of each patent – Whether Full Court erred in failing to have regard to substance of invention claimed in claim 1 of each patent or to direct attention to whether modifications constituted material changes to claimed features of invention – Whether conduct was within scope of any implied licence arising upon unrestricted first sale by patentee of printer cartridges or otherwise involved permissible repair or modification of those printer cartridges – Whether patentee’s rights under s 13 of Patents Act 1990 (Cth) exhausted in respect of printer cartridges at time of first sale.
Documents*
15/11/2019 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
29/11/2019 Notice of appeal
06/01/2020 Written submissions (Appellants)
07/01/2020 Chronology (Appellants)
03/02/2020 Written submissions (Respondents)
24/02/2020 Reply
11/08/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
11/08/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
11/08/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
12/08/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
26/08/2020 Supplementary written submissions (Appellants - addressing questions raised by the Court)
27/08/2020 Supplementary written submissions (Respondents - addressing questions raised by the Court)
12/11/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)
State of Queensland v. The Estate of the Late Jennifer Leanne Masson
Case No.
B63/2019
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
10/05/2019 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Fraser JA, P D McMurdo JA, Boddice J)
Catchwords
Torts – Negligence – Where appellant suffered severe asthma attack – Where ambulance officer treated appellant initially with salbutamol and later with adrenaline – Where appellant suffered hypoxic brain damage and died without regaining consciousness 13 years later – Where ambulance officer’s manual instructed officer to “consider adrenaline”, not salbutamol – Whether Court of Appeal erred in overturning trial judge’s conclusions that ambulance officer had considered administration of adrenaline in accordance with manual, and that responsible body of opinion in medical profession supported administration of salbutamol – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that ambulance officer immediately rejected use of adrenaline because he misunderstood guideline, and that following responsible body of medical opinion would nonetheless involve failure to take reasonable care because manual referred to adrenaline.
Documents
15/11/2019 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
28/11/2019 Notice of appeal
10/01/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
10/01/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
06/02/2020 Written submissions (Respondent)
27/02/2020 Reply
22/05/2020 Application for leave to file amended notice of appeal (Appellant)
11/06/2020 Hearing (Full Court)
11/06/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
11/06/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
13/08/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Pell v. The Queen
Case No.
M112/2019
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
21/08/2019 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Ferguson CJ, Maxwell P & Weinberg JA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Unreasonable verdicts – Where applicant convicted of sexual offences against two child complainants – Where Crown case relied on evidence of one complainant and the other complainant deceased - Whether Court of Appeal majority erred by finding that their belief in complainant required applicant to establish that offending was impossible to raise and leave reasonable doubt – Whether majority erred in concluding that verdicts not unreasonable as, in light of findings made by them, there remained reasonable doubt as to existence of any opportunity for offending to have occurred.
Documents
17/09/2019 Application for special leave to appeal
13/11/2019 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
03/01/2020 Written submissions (Applicant)
03/01/2020 Chronology (Applicant)
31/01/2020 Written submissions (Respondent)
19/02/2020 Further written submissions (Applicant)
20/02/2020 Reply
26/02/2020 Further written submissions (Respondent)
11/03/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/03/2020 Outline of oral argument (Applicant)
11/03/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
12/03/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/03/2020 Applicant's note regarding sections 4A, 44F and 44G of the Jury Directions Act 2015
16/03/2020 Respondent's note
07/04/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: The Queen v. Guode
Date: 04 November 2019
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1h 33m
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.