King v. Philcox

Case No.

A26/2014

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

04/06/2014 Supreme Court of South Australia (Gray J, Sulan J, Parker J)

[2014] SASCFC 38

Catchwords

Tort law – Negligence – Duty of care – Mental harm – Respondent’s brother (victim) was passenger in car driven by appellant which was involved in collision killing victim – Respondent drove past the accident scene five times, each time unaware that victim was his brother – Respondent later developed psychiatric illness upon realising scene of accident was where victim died – Whether appellant owes duty of care to sibling of victim to avoid causing mental harm caused by learning about death of victim in motor accident – Whether existence of duty of care determined solely by reference to s 33(1), Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) (“CLA”) – Whether respondent’s psychiatric illness reasonably foreseeable – Whether respondent was “present at the scene of the accident when the accident occurred” as required by s 51(1)(a) of CLA.

Short particulars

Documents

14/11/2014 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link to Adelaide)

28/11/2014 Notice of appeal

19/12/2014 Written submissions (Appellant)

19/12/2014 Chronology (Appellant)

30/01/2015 Written submissions (Respondent)

13/02/2015 Reply

10/03/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Adelaide)

11/03/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Adelaide)

10/06/2015 Judgment (Summary)

 

Selig & Anor v. Wealthsure Pty Ltd & Ors

Case No.

A25/2014

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

30/05/2014 Federal Court of Australia (Mansfield J, Besanko J, White)

[2014] FCAFC 64

Catchwords

Corporations – Provision of financial advice – Contravention of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) – First and second respondents were appellants’ financial advisors - First and second respondents recommended financial product and provided appellants with disclosure document that did not comply with s 953A of Act – Financial product was insolvent and appellants lost their investment – First and second respondents argued that loss was apportionable and that promoters of financial product should bear majority of claim – Whether claim for damages for misleading financial advice pursuant to ss 769C, 945A, 945B and/or 1041E of Act apportionable under ss 1041H-1041S of Act – Whether claims should be reduced by reference to contributory conduct under s 1041I(1B) of Act.

Short particulars

Documents

14/11/2014 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link to Adelaide)

27/11/2014 Notice of appeal

12/12/2014 Submitting appearance (Tenth to thirteenth respondents)

02/01/2015 Written submissions (Appellants)

02/01/2015 Chronology (Appellants)

30/01/2015 Written submissions (First and second respondents)

13/02/2015 Reply

12/03/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Adelaide)

13/05/2015 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

Case: Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Limited v. Fletcher & Ors

Date: 11 December 2014

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 1h 53m

 

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.

 

Lindsay v. The Queen

Case No.

A24/2014

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

3/06/2014 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Kourakis CJ, Gray J & Peek J)

[2014] SASCFC 56

Catchwords

Criminal law – Defences – Provocation – Appellant convicted of murder – Circumstances of offence included two incidents where victim had made homosexual advances – Court of Criminal Appeal found errors in directions of trial judge as to provocation – Court of Criminal Appeal applied proviso without positive submission by prosecution and held that partial defence of provocation should not have been left to jury – Court of Criminal Appeal relied on academic literature on contemporary attitudes to homosexual behaviour to support conclusion – Whether appropriate for Court of Criminal Appeal to initiate consideration of and then apply proviso – Whether academic literature is relevant in consideration of objective limb of provocation – Whether it is permissible for Court of Criminal Appeal to rely on academic literature without affording parties opportunity to make submissions.

Short particulars

Documents

14/11/2014 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link to Adelaide)

27/11/2014 Notice of appeal

18/12/2014 Written submissions (Appellant)

18/12/2014 Chronology (Appellant)

22/01/2015 Written submissions (Respondent)

04/02/2015 Reply

11/03/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Adelaide)

06/05/2015 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra

Case: Lavin & Anor v. Toppi & Ors

Date: 10 December 2014

Transcript: Hearing

AV time: 1h 58m

 

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.

 

Page 213 of 278