Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
The Court does not normally make AV recordings for interstate hearings. Given the public interest in this matter, the Court has made this video available even though it is of a lower-quality than we would normally produce.
Cases:
- Wilkie & Ors v. The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors
- Australian Marriage Equality Ltd & Anor v. Minister for Finance, Mathias Cormann & Anor
Date: 05 September 2017
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 36m
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.
Pipikos v. Trayans
Case No.
A30/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/12/2016 Supreme Court of South Australia (Kourakis CJ, Kelly J & Hinton J)
Catchwords
Contracts – Enforceability – Past performance – Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) s 26 – Memorandum or note of agreement – Part performance – Where appellant alleges parties entered into oral agreement that appellant would pay share of deposit on property in exchange for respondent selling interest in another property – Where trial judge held no oral agreement existed – Where Full Court held agreement existed but unenforceable – Whether Full Court erred in failing to find appellant’s payment of deposit amounted to part performance sufficient to entitle appellant to enforce agreement – Whether Full Court erred in holding handwritten note not sufficient “memorandum or note” of agreement for purposes of s 26 – Whether Full Court erred in holding appellant not entitled to enforce agreement in circumstances where respondent acknowledged agreement – Whether Full Court erred in failing to consider concessions in handwritten note to identify acts of part performance.
Documents
18/08/2017 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne v/link Adelaide)
31/08/2017 Notice of appeal
22/09/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
22/09/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
23/10/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/11/2017 Reply (Appellant)
14/12/2017 Reply to cross appeal (Respondent)
15/03/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
15/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
15/03/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
12/09/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Irwin v. The Queen
Case No.
B48/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
3/02/2017 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (M McMurdo P, Gotterson JA, Mullins J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 23(1)(b) – Where appellant convicted of causing grievous bodily harm – Where appellant gave evidence of pushing complainant – Where Court of Appeal held complainant’s evidence could not rationally be accepted but dismissed appeal on basis it was open to jury to conclude ordinary person “could” reasonably have foreseen possibility of broken hip as result of push – Whether Court of Appeal erred in application of test under s 23(1)(b) by substituting “could” for “would” – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to find verdict unreasonable.
Documents
18/08/2017 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane)
30/08/2017 Notice of appeal
22/09/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
22/09/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
13/10/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
27/10/2017 Reply
06/12/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/03/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Rozenblit v. Vainer & Anor
Case No.
M114/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/03/2017 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Whelan, Kyrou and McLeish JJA)
Catchwords
Procedure – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) r 63.03(3) – Access to courts – Impecuniosity – Where appellant made applications to file and serve amended statement of claim – Where applications refused with costs – Where appellant made further application for leave to cure drafting deficiencies – Where associate judge granted leave to file and serve amended statement of claim but ordered proceeding be stayed under r 63.03(3) until appellant paid interlocutory costs orders – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether in circumstances where appellant unable to meet interlocutory costs orders and no finding appellant conducted litigation in manner amounting to harassment or because of collateral purpose, Court of Appeal erred in failing to find not open to associate judge to make order under r 63.06(3) or exercise inherent jurisdiction to stay proceeding.
Documents
18/08/2017 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
28/08/2017 Notice of appeal
22/09/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
22/09/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
13/10/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
09/11/2017 Amended Reply
09/02/2018 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/02/2018 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
09/02/2018 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
13/06/2018 Judgment (Judgment summary)
In the matter of questions referred to the Court of Disputed Returns pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) concerning
The Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP
Case No.
C15/2017
Related matters:
C11/2017 – Senate Reference Re Senator the Hon. Canavan
C12/2017 – Senate Reference Re Mr Ludlam
C13/2017 – Senate Reference Re Ms Waters
C14/2017 – Senate Reference Re Senator Roberts
C17/2017 – Senate Reference Re Senator the Hon. Nash
C18/2017 – Senate Reference Re Senator Xenophon
Case Information
Catchwords
Questions referred by the Senate - Court of Disputed Returns - Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) - s376, s377 - Qualification of Senator - Constitution - s44(i)
Questions:
- whether, by reason of s 44(i) of the Constitution, the place of the Member for New England (Mr Joyce) has become vacant;
- if the answer to Question (a) is “yes”, by what means and in what manner that vacancy should be filled;
- what directions and other orders, if any, should the Court make in order to hear and finally dispose of this reference; and
- what, if any, orders should be made as to the costs of these proceedings.
Documents
10/08/2017 Reference from the Speaker of the House of Representatives
24/08/2017 Hearing – Determination (Single Justice, Brisbane v/link Melbourne and Sydney)
24/08/2017 Hearing – Directions (Single Justice, Brisbane v/link Melbourne and Sydney)
15/09/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra v/link Melbourne and Sydney)
26/09/2017 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
26/09/2017 Chronology
28/09/2017 Written submissions (The Hon. Mr Joyce MP)
03/10/2017 Written submissions (Mr Windsor)
06/10/2017 Reply (The Hon Mr Joyce MP)
06/10/2017 Reply (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
10/10/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/10/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/10/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
27/10/2017 Judgment (Judgment Summary)