The Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated of NSW v. Director of Public Employment and Ors
Case No.
S127/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
31/10/2011 Industrial Court of New South Wales (Full Court) (Walton J, Kavanagh J, Backman J)
Catchwords
Constitutional law (Cth) — Constitution, Ch III — Vesting of federal jurisdiction in State courts — Institutional integrity of State Courts — Power of State Parliament to alter defining characteristic of Court of a State — Relationship between the NSW Industrial Commission and the Industrial Court — Presidential members of the NSW Industrial Commission are the only persons who may be appointed as members of the Industrial Court — Certain functions of the NSW Industrial Commission can only be exercised by the Commission constituted as Industrial Court — Section 146C of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), inserted by the Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Act 2011 (NSW) ("Act"), effectively requires the NSW Industrial Commission, not Industrial Court, to give effect to executive policies — Whether the Act is invalid by reason that it undermines the institutional integrity of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission when constituted as Industrial Court — Whether imposition of a requirement upon judges of a State court to give effect to executive policy when exercising non-judicial functions as part of an arbitral tribunal undermines institutional integrity or appearance of independence and impartially of that court — Whether requirement imposed upon judicial members to give effect to executive policy when sitting as the NSW Industrial Commission undermines institutional integrity of the Industrial Court.
Documents
11/05/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
18/05/2012 Notice of appeal
18/05/2012 Notice of constitutional matter (Appellant)
04/06/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
04/06/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
29/06/2012 Written submissions (Respondents)
06/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
06/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Victoria intervening)
06/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intevening)
06/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intevening)
13/07/2012 Reply
05/09/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
12/12/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Andrews and Ors v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited
Case No.
M48/2012
Case Information
Catchwords
Contract law — Liquidated damages — Law of penalties — History of the law of penalties — Law of penalties in Australia and United Kingdom — Relationship between equity and the common law — Requirement for breach — Relationship between banker and customer — Applicants customers of respondent ("ANZ") — ANZ charged customers a variety of fees for overdrawn facilities, overdrawn accounts, dishonouring instructions and over-limit credit card accounts ("Exception Fees") — Whether Exception Fees were capable of characterisation as penalties — Whether the "jurisdiction" in respect of penalties is available only at common law or remains alive in equity — Scope of jurisdiction in equity — Whether relief against penalties requires a breach of contract — Whether jurisdiction to relieve against penalties capable of application in any transaction where, viewed as a matter of substance, an obligation is imposed on one party to pay a sum of money or transfer property to the other in order to secure the performance or enjoyment of a principal object of that transaction — Consideration of core banking law principles pertaining to banker customer relationship — Whether relief against penalties available against Exception Fees.
Documents
11/05/2012 Hearing (Removal, Canberra)
23/05/2012 Cause removed - Appeal
08/06/2012 Written submissions (Applicants)
08/06/2012 Chronology (Applicants)
29/06/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
16/07/2012 Reply
14/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
06/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Attorney-General for South Australia v. Corporation of the City of Adelaide and Ors
Case No.
A16/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
10/08/2011 Supreme Court of South Australia (Doyle CJ, White J, Kourakis J)
Catchwords
Constitutional law (Cth) — Operation and effect of Constitution — Interpretation — Implied freedom of political communication about government or political matters — System of representative and responsible government — Local government — Clauses 2.3 and 2.8 of the Corporation of the City of Adelaide By-Law No 4 (Roads), inter alia, prohibited preaching, canvassing, haranguing, and distribution of printed matter without permission on roads ("by-law") — Application of constitutional freedom of communication about government and political matters where possible to seek judicial review of an administrative decision that refused consent to communicate — Whether by-law complies with limitations on legislative power delegated to local government under s 667(1)9(XVI) of the Local Government Act 1934 (SA) — Whether impugned by-law effectively burdens freedom of communicating about government and political matters — Whether by-law reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve legitimate end in manner compatible with maintenance of representative and responsible government — Whether potential that by-law may be erroneously administered relevant to validity.
Documents
11/05/2012 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by v/link to Adelaide)
23/05/2012 Notice of appeal
24/05/2012 Notice of Constitutional Matter
08/06/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/06/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
15/06/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
15/06/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
15/06/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
26/06/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
29/06/2012 Written submissions (First Respondent)
29/06/2012 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
29/06/2012 Written submissions (Third Respondent)
03/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
13/07/2012 Reply (Appellant)
19/07/2012 Reply (First Respondent)
25/09/2012 Summons seeking leave to intervene and appear as amicus curiae (Human Rights Law Centre)
25/09/2012 Written submissions (Human Rights Law Centre)
27/09/2012 Summons seeking leave to amend Notice of Contention and file supplementary submissions (Third Respondent)
27/09/2012 Supplementary written submissions (Third Respondent)
02/10/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
03/10/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
27/02/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Likiardopoulos v. The Queen
Case No.
M24/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/12/2010 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Buchanan, Ashley, and Tate JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Homicide — Murder — Joint criminal enterprise — Counselling and procuring — Deceased victim an intellectually disabled 22 year old — Victim was missing for several months before body found — Applicant and others were charged with murder — Evidence demonstrated that applicant and co-accused engaged in sustained assault over the course of several days on the victim — Crown accepted pleas of lesser offences by applicant's co-accused namely manslaughter and being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter — Applicant found guilty of murder — Whether it is an abuse of process for the Crown to present a case based on the allegation that an accused has counselled or procured another or others to commit murder (a derivative form of liability) when none of the alleged principals had been convicted of murder — Whether the trial judge erred in leaving to the jury the accused's liability for counselling or procuring another or others to commit murder when none of the alleged principals had been convicted of murder.
Documents
09/03/2012 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
23/03/2012 Notice of appeal
10/04/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
10/04/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
01/05/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
31/05/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
14/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Madeleine Louise Sweeney by her next friend Norma Bell v. Thornton
Case No.
S321/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/08/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Campbell JA, Sackville AJA and Tobias AJA)
Catchwords
Torts — Negligence — Motor vehicle accident — Duty of care — Applicant learner driver — Content of duty of care owed by voluntary supervisor to learner driver — Applicant suffered personal injury when she crashed a car when navigating a bend — Whether supervisor’s failure to warn driver to reduce speed constituted breach of the duty of care — Whether the Court of Appeal erred as to the content of the respondent's duty of care — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings on causation — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its limitation of effect of the respondent's admission on the content of the duty of care — Whether the Court of Appeal erred with respect to various factual findings.
Documents
19/09/2011 Application for special leave to appeal
09/03/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
10/04/2012 Written submissions (Applicant)
10/04/2012 Chronology (Applicant)
21/05/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
21/05/2012 Affidavit seeking leave to file Notice of Contention (Respondent)
29/05/2012 Reply
08/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Special leave refused)