Weinstock and Anor v. Beck and Anor
Case No.
S266/2012
Related matter
S56/2012 – Beck v. Weinstock & Ors
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
5/04/2012 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Campbell JA, Young JA, Sackville AJA)
Catchwords
Corporations law – Redeemable preference shares – Validity of issue – Rights attaching to shares – Eight C class shares were allotted in the third respondent ("the Company") – No other shares in the Company over which the C class shares conferred any priority or preference were ever issued – Directors of the Company resolved to redeem the eight C class shares for a nominal amount – Whether other shares, over which preference is enjoyed, must exist for redeemable preference shares to be valid – Whether eight C class shares in the Company were redeemable preference shares for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2011 (Cth) notwithstanding that there were never any other shares issued in the Company by reference to which the C class shares conferred preference.
Corporations law – Management and administration – Directors and other officers – Appointment removal and retirement of directors – Power of court to rectify corporate act which is taken in contravention of corporate constitution – Section 1322(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) confers on a court power to make an order that any "act, matter or thing purporting to be have been done" either under the Corporations Act, or "in relation to a corporation" is not invalid by reason of any "contravention of a provision of [the Corporations Act] or a provision of the constitution of a corporation" – Whether purported act contravening constitution by person never validly appointed to office is a "contravention" that can be cured by s 1322(4) – Scope of power conferred by s 1322(4) of the Corporations Act 2001.
Documents
07/09/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
20/09/2012 Notice of appeal
21/09/2012 Written submissions (Appellants)
21/09/2012 Chronology (Appellants)
10/10/2012 Written submissions (First Respondents)
17/10/2012 Reply
14/11/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
01/05/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Castle Constructions Pty Limited v. Sahab Holdings Pty Ltd and Anor
Case No.
S263/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
5/04/2012 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (McColl, Campbell JJ and Tobias AJA)
Catchwords
Property – Real property – Powers of Registrar-General – On applicant's request the Registrar-General intentionally, albeit incorrectly, removed easement from applicant's property in the nature of a right of way benefitting neighbouring property – Subsequent purchaser of neighbouring property requested Registrar-General reinstate easement – Registrar-General declined – Whether, contrary to the principles of indefeasibility embodied in the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) („the Act?) the easement should be reinstated to the Register – Whether Registrar-General has power to reinstate easement under s 12(1)(d) of the Act – Whether the term „omission? in ss 12(1)(d) and 42(1)(a1) of the Act encompasses deliberate removal of easement from the Register – Whether a court has power to reinstate easement under s 138 of the Act – Whether proceedings barred by s 12A(3) of the Act by reason of a failure to respond to notice of intention to remove the easement.
Documents
07/09/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
20/09/2012 Notice of appeal
27/09/2012 Notice of cross-appeal
02/10/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/10/2012 Notice of Contention
03/10/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
03/10/2012 Written submissions (Second Respondents)
23/10/2012 Written submissions (First Respondents)
05/11/2012 Reply (Appellant)
30/10/2012 Reply (Second Respondent)
12/11/2012 Reply in Cross Appeal (First Respondents)
18/12/2012 Supplementary submissions (First Respondent)
23/01/2013 Reply to supplementary submissions (Appellant)
23/01/2013 Reply to supplementary submissions (Second Respondent)
25/01/2013 Chronology (First Respondents)
29/01/2013 Chronology (Second Respondents)
06/02/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/04/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
30/10/2013 Judgment [No 2]
Karpany and Anor v. Dietman
Case No.
A18/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
11/05/2012 Supreme Court of South Australia (Gray, Kelly, Blue JJ)
Catchwords
Native title – Preservation of native title rights – Prior extinguishment – Native title right to take fish – Applicants convicted of possession of an aquatic resource contrary to s 72(2)(c) Fisheries Management Act 2007 (SA) – Whether native title rights to take fish extinguished by virtue of s 29 of the Fisheries Act 1971 (SA) – Whether s 72(2)(c) Fisheries Management Act 2007 (SA) inoperative due to inconsistency with s 221 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
Documents
08/06/2012 Application for special leave to appeal
04/07/2012 Notice of Constitutional Matter (Applicants)
07/09/2012 Hearing (SLA, Canberra video link to Adelaide)
02/10/2012 Chronology (Applicants)
09/10/2012 Written submissions - amended (Applicants)
09/10/2012 Written submissions (South Australian Native Title Services seeking leave to intervene)
23/10/2012 Written submissions (Respondent and Attorney-General for South Australia intervening)
30/10/2012 Summons seeking leave to intervene (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia)
30/10/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia intervening)
06/11/2012 Reply
06/11/2012 Reply to interveners (Applicants)
09/10/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/11/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Huynh v. The Queen
Case No.
A30/2012
Related matters:
A31/2012 - Duong v. The Queen
A32/2012 - Sem v. The Queen
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
31/08/2011 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Doyle CJ, Vanstone J, Peek J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Appeal – Jury misdirection – Applicant and co-accused convicted of murder after trial before jury – Trial judge provided written directions on request from jury – Trial judge’s directions omitted element of joint enterprise liability and failed to apply substituted legal directions to the evidence against the applicant – Whether appellate court able to conclude no substantial miscarriage of justice.
Documents
07/09/2012 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by v/link from Adelaide)
21/09/2012 Notice of appeal
02/10/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/10/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
15/11/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/11/2012 Reply
05/12/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
06/12/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
13/03/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Baini v. The Queen
Case No.
M87/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
5/10/2011 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Warren CJ, Nettle JA, Ashley J)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Appeal — Application of 'proviso' — Criminal charges improperly joined — Blackmail — Applicant convicted of 35 counts of blackmail — Most counts referable to one complainant — Trial judge refused applicant's application to sever a single count ('count 50') relating to a second complainant pursuant to ss 371 and 372 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) — Prejudice to applicant — Court of Appeal ordered retrial with respect to count 50 only, but not the other 49 counts — Whether the Court of Appeal erred, having determined that the trial judge was in error regarding non-severance of count 50, by failing to order a retrial on the other counts — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that there was a substantial miscarriage of justice by adopting the approach dictated in Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300 and thereby failing to properly apply s 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic).
Documents
17/08/2012 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
31/08/2012 Notice of appeal
21/09/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
25/09/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
12/10/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
29/10/2012 Amended Reply
08/11/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
12/12/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)