Montevento Holdings Pty Ltd and Anor v. Scaffidi and Anor

Case No.

P22/2012

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

7/07/2011 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) (Buss J, Murphy J, Hall J)

[2011] WASCA 146

Catchwords

Trusts – Trustees – Eligibility for appointment as trustee – Construction of power of appointment in trust deed – Trust deed provides "[i]f, and so long as any individual Appointer is a Beneficiary, that individual shall not be eligible to be appointed as Trustee" – Second applicant ("E") beneficiary and appointer under trust deed – E sole shareholder and director of Montevento Holdings Pty Ltd ("the Company") – E in his capacity as appointer under trust deed sought to appoint the Company as trustee – Whether the Company eligible for appointment as trustee.

Short Particulars

Documents

22/06/2012 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by v/link to Perth)

29/06/2012 Notice of appeal

03/07/2012 Submitting appearance (Second respondent)

09/08/2012 Written submissions (Appellants)

09/08/2012 Chronology (Appellants)

03/09/2012 Written submissions (First Respondent)

18/09/2012 Reply

12/10/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

07/11/2012 Judgment  (Judgment summary)

Plaintiff M47/2012 v. Director General of Security and Ors

Case No.

M47/2012

Case Information

Catchwords

Plaintiff found to be refugee by UNHCR in Indonesia - applied for protection visa - plaintiff given adverse ASIO assessment - protection visa refused - whether Director-General of Security has obligation to accord natural justice - power of 2nd & 3rd defendants to detain plaintiff under Migration Act.

Short Particulars

Documents

23/05/2012 Application for an order to show cause

28/05/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)

30/05/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra v/link to Melbourne)

06/06/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane v/link to Melbourne)

01/06/2012 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)

08/06/2012 Written submissions (Australian Human Rights Commission seeking leave to intervene)

08/06/2012 Written submissions (Plaintiff S138/2012 seeking leave to intervene)

12/06/2012 Revised written submissions (Plaintiff)

12/06/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)

13/06/2012 Written submissions (Defendants)

15/06/2012 Reply

18/06/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)

18/06/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

19/06/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

21/06/2012 Further written submissions (Plaintiff)

21/06/2012 Further written submissions (Defendants)

21/06/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

05/10/2012 Judgment  (Judgment summary)

29/11/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)

RCB as litigation guardian of EKV, CEV, CIV and LRV v. The Honourable Justice Colin James Forrest, one of the judges of the Family Court of Australia & Ors

Case No.

B28/2012

Case Information

Catchwords

Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Constitution, Ch III – Family court proceedings – Director-General of the Department of Child Safety (Queensland) initiated proceedings in the Family Court of Australia under Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 ("regulations") – Court ordered that EKV, CEV, CIV and LRV ("the affected children") be returned to Italy – Affected children did not have separate and independent legal representation in proceedings – Section 68L(3) of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("Act") provides that in proceedings under the regulations a court "may order that the child's interests … be independently represented … only if the court considers there are exceptional circumstances that justify doing so" – Whether s 68L(3) of Act and the regulations require a Chapter III court to exercise judicial power in a manner repugnant to the judicial process.
Administrative law – Procedural fairness – Scope and content of duty of procedural fairness – Application by litigation guardian to intervene in hearing of application to discharge return order – Whether refusal of opportunity to have separate and independent representation denied affected children procedural fairness.

Short Particulars

Documents

21/05/2012 Application for an order to show cause

22/05/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)

24/05/2012 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)

25/05/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)

22/06/2012 Written submissions (Plaintiff)

13/07/2012 Written submissions (Third Defendant)

17/07/2012 Written submissions (Second Defendant)

20/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)

20/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)

20/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)

27/07/2012 Reply

31/07/2012 Written submissions (Fourth Defendant)

07/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

07/11/2012 Judgment  (Judgment summary)

Douglass v. The Queen

Case No.

A17/2012

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

4/02/2011 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Gray J, Sulan J, Anderson J)

[2011] SASCFC 6

Catchwords

Criminal law — Evidence — Burden of proof — Sexual offences — Unsworn evidence — Applicant tried before a judge alone of two counts of indecent assault against his daughter ("LD") and one count of aggravated indecent assault against LD's daughter ("CD") — Applicant found not guilty of counts concerning LD and guilty of count concerning CD — LD's evidence given in form of a video under s 34CA of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) — LD's evidence unsworn and uncorroborated — LD's evidence contradicted in court by accused’s sworn evidence — Only evidence adduced by prosecution in relation to the offence against LD was that of LD — Whether or not the burden of proof against the applicant discharged — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering that this case was a case of "word against word".

Short Particulars

Documents

11/05/2012 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by V/link to Adelaide)

25/05/2012 Notice of appeal

12/06/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)

13/06/2012 Chronology (Appellant)

03/07/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)

17/07/2012 Reply

16/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

07/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Cooper v. The Queen

Case No.

S135/2012

Case Information

Lower Court Judgment

5/12/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Beazley JA, Hidden J, R A Hulme J)

[2011] NSWCCA 258

Catchwords

Criminal law — Homicide — Appeal against conviction — Applicant convicted of murder — Applicant originally stood trial with co-accused — Co-accused acquitted of the murder at separate trial — Co-accused subsequently gave evidence at applicant's trial — Co-accused gave evidence that applicant assaulted deceased with bat and axe — Evidence was adduced that suggested deceased threatened applicant's daughter and assaulted applicant — Another witness "C" gave evidence that co-accused admitted hitting deceased with an axe — Crown presented case as applicant solely responsible for the death or alternatively guilty for participation in a joint criminal enterprise with co-accused — Trial judge included joint criminal enterprise in written directions and further written directions to jury — Culpability for joint criminal enterprise was said to be founded on C's evidence coupled with a rejection of self-defence — Court of Criminal Appeal accepted that joint criminal enterprise was not supported by the evidence but applied the proviso in s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) — Whether the error upheld in applicant's appeal, in which joint criminal enterprise liability was left to the jury when it was not open on the evidence, so fundamental as to preclude application of the proviso — Whether the Court erred in holding that there was no error or inadequacy in the trial judge's directions on joint criminal enterprise, self-defence (or defence of another) and the co-accused's confession to witness "C" — Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in holding that defence counsel's failure to adduce relevant evidence in relation to the deceased's mental condition did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

Short Particulars

Documents

11/05/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)

25/05/2012 Notice of appeal

08/06/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)

08/06/2012 Chronology (Appellant)

29/06/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)

06/07/2012 Reply

09/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)

14/11/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)

Page 257 of 278