IMM v. The Queen
Case No.
D12/2015
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/12/2014 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Riley CJ, Kelly J, Hiley J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Evidence – Tendency evidence – Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT) s 97 – Where applicant was found guilty of three of four offences committed against his step grandchild – Where Complainant made a complaint to family members – Where evidence was given of an incident which was not charged and occurred after the time period of the offences charged – Where several people give evidence of the complaints – Whether trial judge is required to assume that the jury will accept the evidence where considering the probative value of the tendency evidence pursuant to s 97(1)(b) of the Uniform Evidence Law – Whether hearsay evidence of a complaint, involving general allegations of sexual misconduct not linked to any particular charge is admissible as evidence of guilt of the offences charged under the Uniform Evidence Law – Whether the correct approach to assessment of “probative value” for the purposes of s 137 of the Uniform Evidence Law.
Documents
16/10/2015 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
30/10/2015 Notice of appeal
20/11/2015 Written submissions- redacted (Appellant)
20/11/2015 Chronology - redacted (Appellant)
11/12/2015 Written submissions - redacted (Respondent)
15/01/2016 Reply
03/02/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/04/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)
The Maritime Union of Australia & Anor v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Case No.
S136/2015
Case Information
Catchwords
Migration – Categories of visas – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“Act”) – Where Act contains a regime under which non-citizens working in the offshore resources industries must hold permanent or prescribed temporary visas – Where Minister made two Determinations which excluded some off-shore activities from the regime - Whether Determinations IMMI 14/073 and IMMI 14/074 made pursuant to s 9A(6) of the Act by the Minister are valid.
Documents
09/07/2015 Application for an order to show cause
19/08/2015 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
02/10/2015 Consent to vary timetable
28/10/2015 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
23/11/2015 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
23/11/2015 Chronology (Plaintiffs)
14/12/2015 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney v/link to Melbourne)
10/02/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) - VACATED
29/04/2016 Consent orders stating special case and programming timetable
06/05/2016 Special Case Stated
27/05/2016 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
27/05/2016 Chronology
17/06/2016 Written submissions (Defendants)
01/07/2016 Reply
19/07/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
31/08/2016 Judgment (Judgment Summary)
The Queen v. GW
Case No.
C13/2015
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/05/2015 Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Court of Appeal) (Murrell CJ, Refshauge and Ross JJ)
[2015] ACTCA 15
Catchwords
Criminal law – Evidence – Unsworn statements – Where respondent was found guilty of committing acts of indecency upon or in the presence of children “R” and “H” contrary to s 61(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – Where R gave evidence at a pre-trial hearing but was unable to give sworn evidence due to her age – Where she gave unsworn evidence pursuant to s 13 of the Evidence Act 2011(ACT) – Where evidence was admitted without a warning – Where the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction on the basis that the unsworn evidence of R should not have been admitted and the trial judge failed to direct the jury regarding the unsworn evidence of R – Whether, where witnesses give unsworn evidence pursuant to s 13 of the Evidence Act, there should be a requirement that the jury be warned that there is a difference between sworn and unsworn evidence – Whether a finding by a judge that a witness is not competent to give sworn evidence pursuant to s 13(3) of the Evidence Act requires a particular formulation of the warning.
Documents
16/10/2015 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
27/10/2015 Notice of appeal
04/11/2015 Written submissions (Appellant)
04/11/2015 Chronology (Appellant)
18/11/2015 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/11/2015 Reply
10/12/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
02/03/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Moreton Bay Regional Council v. Mekpine Pty Ltd
Case No.
B60/2015
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
2/12/2014 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (M McMurdo P, Holmes JA, Morrison JA)
Catchwords
Property law – Crown Lands – Where respondent entered into a retail shop lease within the meaning of the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld) in respect of Lot 6 on RP 809722 („Lot 6?) – Where the Retail Shopping Centre that Lot 6 was part of expanded to include Lot 1 on RP 847798 („Old Lot 1?) and this Lot was amalgamated by registration of a plan of survey and existing interests under the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) to create a new Lot 1 – Where applicant resumed part of the new Lot 1 under the provision of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld) – Where respondent brought a claim for compensation pursuant to the ALA on the basis that, at the date of resumption, respondent had an interest in the resumed land for the purposes of section 12(5) of the ALA – Whether the creation of a new lot has the effect of varying a lease over just one of the existing allotments – Whether the provisions of the Retail Shop Leases Act which include a definition of “common areas” of a retail shopping centre, operate to vary a retail shop lease to include areas defined by the Retail Shop Leases Act as “common areas” or otherwise create an interest in the “common areas” defined by the Retail Shop Leases Act.
Documents
16/10/2015 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane)
27/10/2015 Notice of appeal
04/11/2015 Written submissions (Appellant)
11/11/2015 Chronology (Appellant)
18/11/2015 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/11/2015 Reply
08/12/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/03/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Fischer & Ors v. Nemeske Pty Ltd & Ors
Case No.
S223/2015
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
11/02/2015 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Beazley P, Barrett JA, Ward JA)
Catchwords
Equity – Trusts and trustees – Power of Trustees – Maintenance and Advancement – Where first respondent is the trustee of the Nemes Family Trust and applicants are the “Specified Beneficiaries” – Where in July 1994 the trust recorded an “asset revaluation reserve” in the accounts of the trust in the amount of $3,904,300 – Where first respondent determined to make a distribution to Mr and Mrs Nemes but no money was paid out – Where, in 1995, first respondent executed a Deed of Charge in favour of the Nemes which recorded that trust was indebted to the Nemes to the sum of $3,904,300 – Whether a trustee of an express trust validly exercise a power to “advance” or “apply” the capital or income of that trust by resolving to pay or credit an amount of money to a beneficiary of the trust, notwithstanding that the trust assets do not include, and have never included, any money – Whether an action for money had received maintainable against a trustee upon the trustee stating an account to the relevant beneficiary, notwithstanding that the trustee continued to have ongoing active duties as trustee in respect of all of the trust assets from which any liability to the relevant beneficiary would be realised.
Documents
16/10/2015 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
26/10/2015 Notice of appeal
30/10/2015 Submitting appearance (First Respondent)
02/11/2015 Submitting appearance (Fourth to Thirteenth Respondents)
02/11/2015 Notice of Contention (Second and Third Respondents)
04/11/2015 Written submissions (Appellants)
04/11/2015 Chronology (Appellants)
18/11/2015 Written submissions (Second and Third Respondents)
25/11/2015 Reply
02/12/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/04/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)