Zurich Insurance Company Ltd & Anor v. Koper & Anor
Case No.
S147/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
20/07/2022 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bell CJ, Ward P, Beech-Jones JA)
Catchwords
Civil procedure – Jurisdiction – Exercise of non-federal jurisdiction by State court – Service outside Australia – Service under Trans-Tasman Pacific Act 2010 (Cth) ("TTPA") – Where first respondent domiciled in New Zealand and registered proprietor of residential apartments designed and constructed by BMX NZ, entity incorporated in New Zealand, and without any assets or presence in Australia – Where BMX NZ insured by appellants under program of professional indemnity insurance – Where registered proprietors of apartments, commenced proceedings in High Court of New Zealand against BMX NZ and its principal, KNZ International Co Limited ("KNZ"), seeking damages in respect of various defects – Where damages awarded against BMX NZ and KNZ – Where, by summons filed on 1 April 2021 in Supreme Court of New South Wales, first respondent sought leave, pursuant to s 5 of Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) ("Claims Act"), to bring representative proceedings under s 4 against first appellant – Where s 4 provides if insured person has insured liability to person, that person ("claimant") may recover amount of insured liability from insurer in proceedings before court of New South Wales – Where primary judge granted leave, holding Claims Act could not apply where claimant's claim against insured person could not properly have been brought in court of New South Wales, but, even though first respondent's claim against BMZ NZ was claim against New Zealand company, without Australian assets, arising out of tort committed in New Zealand, first respondent could bring claim in reliance on Pt 2 of TTPA – Where Pt 2 of TTPA applies to "civil proceeding commenced in Australian court" – Where, pursuant to s 9 of TTPA, initiating document issued by Australian court that relates to civil proceeding may be served in New Zealand under Pt 2 – Whether ss 9 and 10 of TTPA can validly operate to authorise, or to deem as effective, service of process of State court outside territory of Commonwealth except in matters that engage federal jurisdiction – Whether first respondent could properly have brought claim against BMX NZ in connection with design or construction of apartments in court of New South Wales.
Constitutional law – Legislative power – Heads of power – External affairs – Service and execution of process throughout Commonwealth – Whether, having regard to terms of s 51(xxiv) and Ch III of Constitution, s 51(xxix) empowers Commonwealth Parliament to make laws with respect to service, outside Commonwealth, of process of State courts in matters that would not engage federal jurisdiction.
Documents*
10/11/2022 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
21/11/2022 Notice of appeal
09/01/2023 Written submissions (Appellants)
09/01/2023 Chronology (Appellants)
06/02/2023 Written submissions (First Respondent)
06/02/2023 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
27/02/2023 Reply
13/04/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
13/04/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
13/04/2023 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
13/04/2023 Outline of oral argument (Second Respondent)
08/08/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: ATTORNEY-GENERAL (CTH) V HUYNH & ORS
Date: 09 November 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 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.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: ATTORNEY-GENERAL (CTH) V HUYNH & ORS
Date: 08 November 2022
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 34m
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.
McNamara v. The King
Case No.
S143/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/07/2021 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Bell P, R A Hulme and Beech-Jones JJ)
Catchwords
Evidence – Unfair prejudice – Meaning of "party" – Joint trial – Co-accused – Where appellant and co-accused arraigned upon joint indictment that alleged one count of murder and one count of supply of commercial quantity of prohibited drug – Where Crown alleged that, pursuant to joint criminal enterprise, appellant and co-accused murdered deceased and dispossessed deceased of drugs – Where appellant sought to introduce evidence relevant to defence of duress and existence of joint criminal enterprise, namely evidence co-accused said to appellant "I did [deceased]" and evidence co-accused told appellant of other serious crimes co-accused committed – Where evidence excluded on basis that, though relevant under s 55 of Evidence Act 1994 (NSW), probative value of evidence substantially outweighed by danger evidence might be "unfairly prejudicial to party" under s 135(a) of Evidence Act, namely to co-accused – Whether word "party" in s 135(a) of Evidence Act 1994 (NSW) extends to and includes co-accused in joint trial
Documents*
21/10/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
04/11/2022 Notice of appeal
16/01/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/01/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
24/02/2023 Written submissions (Respondent)
17/03/2023 Reply
16/05/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
16/05/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
16/05/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
15/11/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Barnett v. Secretary, Department of Community and Justice
Case No.
S142/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/02/2022 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) (Aldridge, Hogan and Hannam JJ)
Catchwords
Family law – Child abduction – Issue estoppel – Where child, born in Ireland, removed from Ireland by mother without father's knowledge – Where father initiated proceedings in District Court of Dublin Metropolitan District seeking interim order for appointment as child's guardian and for custody pursuant to Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 (IR) ("Guardianship Act") – Where District Court made interim order and subsequent declaration under Guardianship Act declaring father as guardian – Where father filed application for return of child in accordance with Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction – Where application filed in Family Court of Australia seeking return of child to Ireland – Where primary judge found District Court order sufficed to fulfil the requirement of "rights of custody" for purposes of reg 4 of Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth) and decision of District Court gave rise to issue estoppel, preventing Court from re-determining any factual issues –Whether order of District Court created issue estoppel that prevented Family Court from determining whether, under Irish law, father of applicant’s child had rights of custody as defined by reg 4 of Regulations – Whether issue estoppel can be drawn from text of foreign order in absence of reasons for judgment and transcript.
Documents*
21/10/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
03/11/2022 Notice of appeal
25/11/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
25/11/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
19/12/2022 Written submissions (Respondent)
09/01/2023 Reply
10/02/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
(Pronouncement of orders included)
10/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
10/02/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
15/03/2023 Judgment (Judgment Summary)