Australian Securities and Investments Commission v. King & Anor
Case No.
B29/2019
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/12/2018 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Morrison & McMurdo JJA, Applegarth J)
Catchwords
Corporations law – Officers of corporation – Where the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”) commenced civil penalty case against MFS Investment Management Ltd (“MFSIM”) and various directors, officers and employees of the MFS Group of companies – Where proceedings against MFSIM resolved by consent but trial proceeded against individuals – Whether Court of Appeal erred by concluding that it was necessary for ASIC to prove that the first respondent acted in an “office” of MFSIM in order for him to be an “officer” of MFSIM for the purposes of ss 601FD and 9(b)(ii) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Documents
17/05/2019 Hearing (SLA, Sydney v/link Brisbane)
29/05/2019 Notice of appeal
05/07/2019 Written submissions (Appellant)
05/07/2019 Chronology (Appellant)
02/08/2019 Written submissions (First Respondent)
02/08/2019 Chronology (First Respondent)
23/08/2019 Reply (Appellant)
29/08/2019 Reply on the Cross-Appeal (First Respondent)
09/10/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/10/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
09/10/2019 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
23/10/2019 Amended Notice of Appeal (Appellant)
11/03/2020 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
Westpac Banking Corporation & Anor v. Lenthall & Ors
Case No.
S154/2019
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
1/03/2019 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Middleton J, Robertson J)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Separation of powers – Principle of legality – Acquisition on just terms – Where representative proceeding under Part IVA of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – Where primary judge determined making of common fund order appropriate to do justice in proceedings – Whether Full Court erred in holding that properly construed s 33ZF of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (“FCAA”) empowers court to make common fund order – Whether Full Court erred in holding that s 33ZF permitted creation of right in litigation funder to share of any settlement or judgment in favour of a group member – Whether Full Court erred in holding principle of legality does not apply because common fund order "supports and fructifies" rather than diminishes rights of group members – Whether Full Court erred in holding as matter of construction and notwithstanding Anthony Hordern principle s33ZF supported making of common fund order – Whether Full Court erred in holding s 33ZF conferred judicial power or power incidental to the exercise of judicial power on court – Whether Full Court erred in holding neither s 33ZF nor common fund order resulted in acquisition of property for purposes of s 51(xxxi) of Constitution – Whether Full Court erred in holding if s 33ZF is law with respect to acquisition of property it is not invalid because appellants failed to demonstrate group members would not receive pecuniary equivalent of property acquired.
Documents
15/05/2019 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
28/05/2019 Notice of appeal
28/05/2019 Notice of constitutional matter (Appellants)
19/06/2019 Written submissions (Appellants)
19/06/2019 Chronology (Appellants)
23/07/2019 Written submissions (Fifth Respondent)
23/07/2019 Written submissions (First to Fourth Respondents)
29/07/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
29/07/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
29/07/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Queensland intervening)
29/07/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for Western Australia intervening)
06/08/2019 Reply
09/08/2019 Amended written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Queensland intervening)
13/08/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
13/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (First to Fourth Respondents)
14/08/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Fifth Respondent)
14/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
14/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
14/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
04/12/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
BMW Australia Ltd v. Brewster & Anor
Case No.
S152/2019
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
1/03/2019 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Meagher JA, Ward JA, Leeming JA)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Separation of powers – Acquisition of property on just terms – “Common fund order” in class action proceeding – Where Brewster is representative plaintiff in class action against BMW Australia Ltd – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 183 of Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (“CPA”) on its proper construction empowered the Supreme Court of New South Wales to make common fund order – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to conclude that insofar as s 183 of CPA empowered making of common fund order it was not picked up by s 79 of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) because that would infringe Chapter III and/or s 51(xxxi) of Constitution.
Documents
15/05/2019 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
24/05/2019 Notice of appeal
24/05/2019 Notice of constitutional matter (Appellant)
19/06/2019 Written submissions (Appellant)
19/06/2019 Chronology (Appellant)
23/07/2019 Written submissions (First Respondent)
29/07/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
29/07/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
29/07/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Queensland intervening)
29/07/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for Western Australia intervening)
01/08/2019 Notice of constitutional matter (Attorney-General for the State of Queensland intervening)
05/08/2019 Reply
09/08/2019 Amended written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Queensland intervening)
13/08/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
14/08/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
14/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
14/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
14/08/2019 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
04/12/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
BHP Billiton Limited (now named BHP Group Limited) v. Commissioner of Taxation
Case No.
B28/2019
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/01/2019 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Davies J, Thawley J)
Catchwords
Taxation – Where appellant is part of a dual-listed company arrangement with non-resident company – Where third company (BMAG) indirectly owned by appellant and non-resident company – Where BMAG derived income from sale of commodities purchased from non-resident company’s Australian subsidiaries – Whether non-resident company’s Australian subsidiaries were “associates” of BMAG within meaning of s 318 of Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) – Whether BMAG, appellant and/or the non-resident company were “sufficiently influenced” by appellant and/or the non-resident company within meaning of s 318(6) – Whether Full Court erred in concluding that a person or entity acts "in accordance with" directions, instructions or wishes of another entity for purposes of s 318(6)(b) if person or entity merely acts "in harmonious correspondence, agreement or conformity with" those directions, instructions or wishes – Whether Full Court should have found that, in order to act "in accordance with" directions, instructions or wishes of another entity for purposes of s 318(6)(b) a person or entity must treat that other entity's directions, instructions or wishes as themselves being a sufficient reason so to act – Whether Full Court erred in finding that at a minimum appellant and BHP Billiton Plc each acted "in accordance with" the "directions, instructions or wishes" of the other for the purposes of s 318(6)(b) – Whether Full Court should have concluded that such actions were not done "in accordance with" the "directions, instructions or wishes" of the other for the purposes of s 318(6)(b).
Documents*
15/05/2019 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
29/05/2019 Notice of appeal
03/07/2019 Written submissions (Appellant)
03/07/2019 Chronology (Appellant)
31/07/2019 Written submissions (Respondent)
21/08/2019 Reply
05/11/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
05/11/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
05/11/2019 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
11/03/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)
In the matter of Jerrod James Conomy
Case No.
P22/2019
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
20/03/2019 High Court of Australia (Keane and Edelman JJ)
Catchwords
Order made 20/3/19 that applicant be prohibited from instituting any further proceedings in the High Court relating to the convictions the subject of Conomy v Maden [2016] WASCA 30 and Conomy v Maden [2016] WASCA 31 - whether error - whether substantial miscarriage of justice
Documents*
23/04/2019 Notice of appeal
23/04/2019 Summons seeking an extension of time to file Notice of appeal and other orders
21/05/2019 Chronology (Appellant)
22/05/2019 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
11/06/2019 Written submissions (Applicant)
03/07/2019 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Perth)
10/07/2019 Proposed amended written submissions (Applicant)
06/08/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth as amicus curiae)
14/08/2019 Reply
05/09/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (includes pronouncement of orders and publication of reasons)
16/10/2019 Publication of reasons