Beck v. Weinstock and Ors
Case No.
S56/2012
Related matter
S266/2012 - Weinstock & Ors v. Beck & Anor
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/08/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Giles JA, Handley AJA, Young JA)
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.
Documents
10/02/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
24/02/2012 Notice of appeal
09/03/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
09/03/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
30/03/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
10/04/2012 Reply
21/06/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
14/11/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
15/11/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
01/05/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Commonwealth of Australia v. Kutlu and Ors
Commonwealth of Australia v. Clarke and Ors
Commonwealth of Australia v. Lee and Ors
Commonwealth of Australia v. Lee and Ors
The Minister of State for Health and Ageing v. Condoleon and Ors
Case No.
S50/2012; S51/2012; S52/2012; S53/2012; S54/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/07/2011 Federal Court of Australia (Rares, Flick & Katzmann JJ)
Catchwords
Administrative law — Jurisdictional error — Statutory construction — Ministerial appointments — De facto officer doctrine — Professional services review scheme — Non-compliance with statutory requirements for consultation before making appointments — Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) ("the Act") provides that Minister must consult with and be advised by Australian Medical Association ("AMA") before appointing medical practitioner as a Deputy Director or member of the Professional Services Review ("PSR") Panel — Appointments made without consulting the AMA — Impugned appointees members of PSR Committees that subsequently made adverse findings against the five respondent medical practitioners — Challenge to validity of PSR Committees — Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held the PSR Panel appointments and composition of PSR Committees including the appointees invalid — Findings by invalidly constituted PSR Committees of no legal effect — Whether an appointment to the PSR Panel under s 84(2) of the Act is invalid if there is a breach of the requirement in s 84(3) that the Minister consult the AMA before making the appointment — Whether an appointment of a Deputy Director under s 85(1) of the Act is invalid if there is a breach of the requirement in s 85(3) that the Minister consult the AMA before making the appointment — Whether the failure of the Minister to consult with the AMA before making an appointment to the PSR Panel results in the invalid constitution of any PSR Committee whose constitution includes such appointees — Whether the failure of the Minister to consult with the AMA before making an appointment to the PSR Panel results in the invalidity of the draft and final reports of a PSR Committee whose constitution includes such appointees — Whether de facto officer doctrine applicable to remedy decisions involving impugned appointees.
Documents
10/02/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
23/02/2012 Notice of appeal
09/03/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
09/03/2012 Chronology (Kutlu)
09/03/2012 Chronology (Clarke)
09/03/2012 Chronology (Lee S52/2012)
09/03/2012 Chronology (Lee S53/2012)
09/03/2012 Chronology (Condoleon)
16/03/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia seeking leave to intervene)
30/03/2012 Written submissions (First Respondent)
10/04/2012 Reply
18/05/2012 Notice of Discontinuance (all matters)
29/05/2012 Hearing (vacated)
Crump v. State of New South Wales and Anor
Case No.
S165/2011
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law (Cth) — Chapter III — State Supreme Courts — Variation or alteration of judgment, decree, order or sentence by Parliament — Plaintiff convicted of murder and conspiracy to murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on both counts — Sentencing judge expressed view that plaintiff should never be released — Pursuant to s 13A of Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW), Supreme Court of New South Wales subsequently fixed dates on which plaintiff eligible for release on parole — Section 154A of Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) ("Administration Act") provides that Parole Authority may make order directing release of person subject to non-release recommendation only in prescribed circumstances — Parole Board determined plaintiff ineligible for parole pursuant to s 154A of Administration Act — Whether s 154A of Administration Act invalid because it has effect of varying or otherwise altering a judgment, decree, order or sentence of Supreme Court of New South Wales in a matter within meaning of s 73 of Commonwealth Constitution.
Documents
10/05/2011 Writ of summons
10/05/2011 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)
16/05/2011 Submitting appearance (Second Defendant)
25/08/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
20/09/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
16/11/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
01/02/2012 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
15/02/2012 Written submissions (First Defendant)
22/02/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
22/02/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
22/02/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
22/02/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
27/02/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
29/02/2012 Reply
27/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
04/05/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Kizon v. The Queen and Anor
Case No.
P61/2011
Related matter:
P60/2011 – Mansfield v. The Queen & Anor
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/06/2011 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) (McLure P, Buss JA, Murray AJA)
Catchwords
Corporations law — Insider trading — Inside information — Applicants prosecuted on indictment alleging offences contrary to Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("Act"), s 1043A and (former) s 1002G — Trial judge held inside information "must, in general circumstances, be a factual reality" and directed verdicts of acquittal on all but four counts against Mansfield — Whether "information", for purpose of offence in (former) s 1002G and s 1043A of Act, as defined in (former) s 1002G and s 1042A of Act, required to be truthful, a factual reality or based on reasonable grounds — Whether element of offence of insider trading that inside information possessed by accused corresponds with information possessed by entity entitled to have or use it.
Words and Phrases — “information”.
Documents
09/12/2011 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by V/link to Perth)
23/12/2011 Notice of appeal
06/01/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
06/01/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
27/01/2012 Written submissions (First Respondent)
03/02/2012 Reply
09/05/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
14/11/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Mansfield v. The Queen and Anor
Case No.
P60/2011
Related Matter:
P61/2011 – Kizon v. The Queen & Anor
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/06/2011 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) (McLure P, Buss JA, Murray AJA)
Catchwords
Corporations law — Insider trading — Inside information — Applicants prosecuted on indictment alleging offences contrary to Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("Act"), s 1043A and (former) s 1002G — Trial judge held inside information "must, in general circumstances, be a factual reality" and directed verdicts of acquittal on all but four counts against Mansfield — Whether "information", for purpose of offence in (former) s 1002G and s 1043A of Act, as defined in (former) s 1002G and s 1042A of Act, required to be truthful, a factual reality or based on reasonable grounds — Whether element of offence of insider trading that inside information possessed by accused corresponds with information possessed by entity entitled to have or use it.
Words and Phrases — “information”.
Documents
09/12/2011 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by V/link to Perth)
23/12/2011 Notice of appeal
06/01/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
17/01/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
27/01/2012 Written submissions (First Respondent)
03/02/2012 Reply
09/05/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
14/11/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)