NuCoal Resources Limited v. State of New South Wales
Case No.
S138/2014
Related cases:
S119/2014 - Duncan v. The State of New South Wales;
S206/2014 - Cascade Coal Pty Limited & Ors v. The State of New South Wales
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Chapter III – Judicial power – Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) commenced public inquiry styled “Operation Acacia” investigating the application and allocation of mining lease – ICAC commenced second public inquiry styled “Operation Jasper” investigating, amongst other things, decision of Minister for Mineral Resources to open mining area for coal exploration and award mining licences – Both inquiries produced reports which recommended Parliament pass special legislation to expunge or cancel authorities granted under Mining Act 1992 (NSW) (“Mining Act”) – Mining Amendment (Operations Jasper and Acacia) Act 2014 (NSW) inserted Sch 6A into Mining Act – Whether cl 1 to 13 of Sch 6A of Act are invalid because they constitute exercise of judicial power and Parliament of NSW may not exercise judicial power.
Constitutional law – Commonwealth Constitution, s 109 – Inconsistency between Commonwealth law and State law – Cl 11 of Sch 6A of Mining Act authorises appropriate official to publish or reproduce literary or artistic works in which plaintiffs hold copyright – Whether cl 11 of Sch 6A of Mining Act inconsistent with Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
Documents
25/06/2014 Writ of summons
25/06/2014 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)
14/08/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
17/09/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
23/09/2014 Special Case Stated
05/11/2014 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
05/11/2014 Chronology
12/11/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
26/11/2014 Written submissions (Defendant)
26/11/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
26/11/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
26/11/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
26/11/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
08/12/2014 Reply
10/02/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/02/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
15/04/2015 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Duncan v. The State of New South Wales
Case No.
S119/2014
Related cases:
S138/2014 - NuCoal Resources Limited v. State of New South Wales;
S206/2014 - Cascasde Coal Pty Limited & Ors v. The State of New South Wales
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Chapter III – Judicial power – Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) commenced public inquiry styled “Operation Acacia” investigating the application and allocation of mining lease – ICAC commenced second public inquiry styled “Operation Jasper” investigating, amongst other things, decision of Minister for Mineral Resources to open mining area for coal exploration and award mining licences – Both inquiries produced reports which recommended Parliament pass special legislation to expunge or cancel authorities granted under Mining Act 1992 (NSW) (“Mining Act”) – Mining Amendment (Operations Jasper and Acacia) Act 2014 (NSW) inserted Sch 6A into Mining Act – Whether cl 1 to 13 of Sch 6A of Act are invalid because they constitute exercise of judicial power and Parliament of NSW may not exercise judicial power.
Constitutional law – Commonwealth Constitution, s 109 – Inconsistency between Commonwealth law and State law – Cl 11 of Sch 6A of Mining Act authorises appropriate official to publish or reproduce literary or artistic works in which plaintiffs hold copyright – Whether cl 11 of Sch 6A of Mining Act inconsistent with Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
Documents
30/05/2014 Writ of summons
30/05/2014 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)
14/08/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
17/09/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
25/09/2014 Special case stated
22/10/2014 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
22/10/2014 Chronology
12/11/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
12/11/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
12/11/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
12/11/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
12/11/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
12/11/2014 Written submissions (Defendant)
24/11/2014 Reply
10/02/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/02/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
15/04/2015 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Lavin & Anor v. Toppi & Ors
Case No.
S258/2014
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/05/2014 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Macfarlan, Emmett, Leeming JJA)
Catchwords
Equity – Contribution between co-sureties – Appellants paid lesser amount, pursuant to guarantee, than respondents who were co-sureties – Creditor Bank granted appellants covenant not to sue – NSW Court of Appeal held that contribution in equity was available to respondents – Whether creditor’s covenant not to sue has effect upon rights of contribution which arise between co-sureties – Whether co-surety, having obtained covenant not to sue, shares with other co-sureties co-ordinate liabilities of the same nature and extent so as to give rise to right to contribution as between co-sureties.
Documents
12/09/2014 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
24/09/2014 Notice of appeal
16/10/2014 Written submissions (Appellants)
16/10/2014 Chronology (Appellants)
10/11/2014 Written submissions (Respondents)
18/11/2014 Reply
10/12/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/02/2015 Judgment (Judgment summary)
CMB v. Attorney General for New South Wales
Case No.
S257/2014
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/03/2014 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Ward JA, Harrison J, R A Hulme J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentencing – Appeal against sentence – Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) (“CAA”), s 5D – Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“CSPA”), s 23 – Appellant sexually assaulted daughter and charged – Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) successfully applied to have charges remitted to Local Court for referral to pre-trial diversion program – During program appellant revealed other offences committed against daughter – Appellant charged with further counts of aggravated sexual and indecent assault – At hearing appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of aggravated indecent assault – Appellant sentenced to good behaviour bonds with requirement that appellant complete program – Attorney-General for New South Wales filed notice of appeal pursuant to s 5D of CAA – Court of Criminal Appeal allowed appeal and re-sentenced appellant to five years and six months’ imprisonment – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in not exercising its residual discretion to decline to interfere under s 5D of CAA - Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in holding that the onus lay upon appellant contrary to authority and limited purpose of Crown appeals – Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in its application of both s 23 of CSPA and principle in R v Ellis in determining what leniency should be afforded to appellant.
Documents
12/09/2014 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
24/09/2014 Notice of appeal
17/10/2014 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/10/2014 Chronology (Appellant)
07/11/2014 Written submissions (Respondent)
21/11/2014 Reply
28/11/2014 Chronology (Respondent)
05/12/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/03/2015 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v. Zhao & Anor
Case No.
M92/2014
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
27/06/2014 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Nettle, Tate & Beach JJA)
Catchwords
Proceeds of crime – Practice and procedure – Application for stay of civil forfeiture proceedings under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) (“POCA”) – Second respondent, who was charged with offence yet to be heard and determined, and first respondent, his wife, were granted stay of forfeiture proceedings against their restrained property by the Victorian Court of Appeal (“VCA”) – Whether VCA erred by not applying test of whether there was a real risk to administration of justice – Whether principles in Lee v The NSW Crime Commission and Lee v The Queen required VCA to take particular approach to stay of in rem civil forfeiture proceedings – Whether VCA failed to pay regard to distinction between compulsory examination under POCA of person charged with offence and nature of in rem civil forfeiture trial when it attached determinative significance to POCA’s abrogation of privilege against self-incrimination in respect of former but not latter – Whether VCA erred by granting a stay for forfeiture of property owned solely by first respondent to first respondent who had not been charged with offence on basis that any evidence she gave could expose risk of her evidence being used against second respondent in criminal proceedings.
Documents
12/09/2014 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
23/09/2014 Notice of appeal
17/10/2014 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/10/2014 Chronology (Appellant)
07/11/2014 Written submissions (Respondents)
21/11/2014 Reply
27/11/2014 Amended Chronology (Appellant)
04/12/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/02/2015 Judgment (Judgment summary)