Clodumar v. Nauru Lands Committee
Case No.
M37/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/02/2002 Supreme Court of Nauru (Connell CJ)
Catchwords
Judgment given in 2002 - based on finding of fact that no Presidential approval given for claimed transfer of land to appellant - in 2011 appellant made aware of existence of Presidential approval - Approval would be complete answer to basis on which Court below found against appellant - new evidence of approval ought to be admitted and judgment below ought to be set aside.
Documents
18/05/2011 Notice of appeal
13/09/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
13/09/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
11/10/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
13/10/2011 Notice of Constitutional Matter
10/11/2011 Additional written submissions (Respondent)
22/11/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by V/link to Melbourne)
10/02/2012 Further written submissions (Appellant)
24/02/2012 Further written submissions (Respondent)
09/03/2012 Reply (Appellant)
20/04/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
20/06/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v. Barclay and Anor
Case No.
M128/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
9/02/2011 Federal Court of Australia (Gray, Lander and Bromberg JJ)
Catchwords
Industrial law — Adverse action — General protection — First respondent ("Barclay") an employee of applicant ("Institute") and Sub-Branch President at Institute of second respondent ("AEU") — Barclay sent email to AEU members employed at Institute noting reports of serious misconduct by unnamed persons at Institute — Barclay did not advise managers of details of alleged misconduct — Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of Institute wrote to Barclay requiring him to show cause why he should not be disciplined for failing to report alleged misconduct — Barclay suspended on full pay — Respondents alleged action taken by CEO of Institute constituted adverse action under s 342 of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ("Act") — Trial judge found adverse action taken by CEO on basis of breach of Institute's code of conduct rather than Barclay's union activity — Full Court of Federal Court held that sending of email was part of Barclay's functions as AEU officer and therefore adverse action had been taken within meaning of Act — Whether evidence that adverse action taken for innocent and non-proscribed reason sufficient to establish defence to cause of action under Pt 3.1 of Act ("general protections provisions") — Whether a decision-maker who is not conscious of a proscribed reason able to be found to have engaged in adverse action contrary to general protection provisions — Whether a distinction exists between the cause of conduct said to constitute adverse action and the reason a person took adverse action — Act, ss 341, 342, 346, 360, 361 — General Motors Holden Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 12 ALR 605; Purvis v State of New South Wales (2003) 217 CLR 92.
Documents
02/09/2011 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
16/09/2011 Notice of appeal
30/09/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
30/09/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
26/10/2011 Written submissions (Respondents)
02/11/2011 Written submissions (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations intervening)
09/112011 Reply
29/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
10/09/2012 Written submissions on costs (Appellant)
12/09/2012 Written submissions on costs (Respondents)
14/09/2012 Written submissions in reply on costs (Appellant)
03/10/2012 Judgment
Papaconstuntinos v. Holmes a Court
Case No.
S319/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
21/03/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)
(Allsop P, Beazley JA, Giles JA, Tobias JA, McColl JA)
Catchwords
Defamation — Defence of qualified privilege — Respondent involved in bid to invest funds in South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club ("Club") in exchange for controlling interest — Applicant, employee of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union ("CFMEU"), opposed respondent's bid — Prior to Extraordinary General Meeting at which bid was to be put to Club members, respondent sent letter of complaint to State Secretary of CFMEU, copied to former Chairman of Club, which also came to attention of applicant's immediate supervisor — Trial judge found letter conveyed three defamatory imputations and rejected, inter alia, respondent's plea of common law qualified privilege on the basis that there was no "pressing need" for the respondent to protect his interests by volunteering the defamatory information — Court of Appeal held defence of qualified privilege established since respondent had a legitimate interest in publishing the defamatory letter, and that the trial judge erred in applying the test of "pressing need" to establish qualified privilege — Whether defence of qualified privilege at common law requires evidence of "pressing need" to communicate defamatory matter — Whether absence of "pressing need" decisive — Whether requisite reciprocity of interest existed on occasion of communication of defamatory matter — Whether respondent's communication of suspicion of applicant's criminality fairly warranted to protect of further respondent's interests.
Words and phrases — "pressing need".
Documents
02/09/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
16/09/2011 Notice of appeal
14/10/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
14/10/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
04/11/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/11/2011 Reply
10/05/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
15/05/2012 Supplementary Note (Respondent)
05/12/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Harbour Radio Pty Limited v. Trad
Case No.
S318/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
22/03/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Tobias, McColl and Basten JJA)
Catchwords
Defamation — Defence of substantial truth — Application of defence — Respondent engaged in public speech concerning activities of Radio 2GB, a station owned and operated by the applicant — Radio 2GB broadcast response to respondent's speech consisting of a presenter monologue, audio recording of part of respondent's speech and talkback calls — Respondent brought proceedings for defamation — Jury found certain defamatory imputations arose from broadcast — Applicant relied on, inter alia, defence of substantial truth — Trial judge found certain imputations were matters of substantial truth and applicant not actuated by malice — Court of Appeal overturned trial judge's findings with respect to defence of truth on the basis that while the correct test had been identified, it was not applied, and therefore could not be sustained — Whether trial judge failed to apply relevant test for defence of truth — Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 15.
Documents
02/09/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
16/09/2011 Notice of appeal
30/09/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
30/09/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
21/10/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
07/11/2011 Reply
03/02/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
21/02/2012 Supplementary reply (Appellant)
05/03/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/10/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
King v. The Queen
Case No.
M129/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/03/2011 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Buchanan, Redlich and Mandie JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Dangerous driving causing death — Direction to jury — Applicant found guilty of two counts of culpable driving causing death contrary to s 318 of Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ("Act") — Primary judge left to jury alternative charge of dangerous driving causing death contrary to s 319(1) of Act — Primary judge directed jury that Crown case in respect of dangerous driving charge required same analysis as culpable driving charge — Whether primary judge erred in directing jury that, in relation to dangerous driving charge, driving need only have significantly increased risk of hurting or harming others, and that driving need not be deserving of criminal punishment — Whether a substantial miscarriage of justice — R v De Montero (2009) 25 VR 694.
Words and phrases — "substantial miscarriage of justice".
Documents
02/09/2011 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
16/09/2011 Notice of appeal
30/09/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
30/09/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
21/10/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
07/11/2011 Reply
16/11/2011 Reply on notice of contention (Respondent)
06/12/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
20/06/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)