Cumerlong Holdings Pty Ltd v. Dalcross Properties Pty Ltd and Ors
Case No.
S120/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
9/09/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)
Catchwords
Environment and planning — Building control — Planning instruments — Interpretation — Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan 194 ("LEP 194") rezoned applicant's land — Whether LEP 194 a "provision", for purpose of s 28(3) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) ("the Act"), that accords with s 28(2) of the Act — Whether s 28(3) of the Act required approval of Governor to effect change of zoning under LEP 194 — Whether s 28(3) of the Act engaged if LEP 194 contains no express provision identifying regulatory instrument which shall not apply to any particular development.
Words and phrases — "provide", "provision".
Documents
11/03/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
25/03/2011 Notice of appeal
30/03/2011 Submitting appearance (First and second respondents)
08/04/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/04/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
06/05/2011 Written submissions (Third respondent)
16/05/2011 Written submissions
(Minister for Planning and Infrastructure - Seeking leave to intervene)
01/06/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
03/08/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Sportsbet Pty Ltd v. State of New South Wales and Ors
Case No.
S118/2011
(Consolidated appeal from special leave applications S290/2010 and S291/2010)
Related matter
S116/2011 - Betfair Pty Limited v. Racing New South Wales & Ors
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/11/2010 Federal Court of Australia(Keane CJ, Lander & Buchanan JJ)
Catchwords
Constitutional law — Freedom of interstate trade — Applicant a licensed bookmaker domiciled in Northern Territory — NSW legislative scheme prohibited use of race field information without approval and authorised imposition of fee as condition for approval ("Scheme") — Fee imposed on all wagering operators irrespective of whether domiciled in NSW — NSW racing control bodies subsidised NSW wagering operators — Whether practical effect of fee was to impose discriminatory burden of protectionist nature on interstate trade — Whether Scheme inconsistent with freedom of interstate trade, commerce and intercourse — Constitution, ss 92, 109 — Northern Territory (Self Government) Act 1978 (Cth), s 49 — Racing Administration Act 1998 (NSW), s 33(1).
Constitutional law — Freedom of interstate trade — Whether Scheme inconsistent with freedom of interstate trade, commerce and intercourse — Whether practical effect of Scheme determinable without consideration of offsetting reductions in existing fees payable by intrastate traders — Whether necessary for interstate trader to show that interstate trader's competitive advantage derived from place of origin in another State or Territory and Scheme imposed discriminatory burden affecting that advantage — Whether Scheme protectionist if imposed with intention of protecting intrastate traders and fee not reasonably appropriate or adapted to non-protectionist objective — Whether validity of statutory prohibition, combined with administrative discretion to relax prohibition, to be determined by comparing interstate and intrastate traders' positions — Whether relevant or determinative that State and administrative bodies intend discretion over prohibition to be exercised to protect intrastate traders — Constitution, ss 92, 109 — Northern Territory (Self Government) Act 1978 (Cth), s 49 — Racing Administration Act 1998 (NSW), s 33(1).
Documents
11/03/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
24/03/2011 Notice of appeal
08/04/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/04/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
29/04/2011 Written submissions (First Respondents)
06/05/2011 Written submissions (Second and Third Respondents)
06/05/2011 Written submissions (Fourth Respondent)
13/05/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia)
13/05/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria)
17/05/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
24/05/2011 Reply
28/06/2011 Written submissions (Tab Limited and Tabcorp Limited seeking leave to intervene)
19/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Queensland)
29/08/2011 Written submissions in opposition to application for leave to intervene by Tab Limited and Tabcorp Limited (Appellant)
30/08/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
31/08/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
01/09/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
19/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Appellant)
26/09/2011 Supplementary submissions (Second and Third Respondents)
26/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (First Respondent)
28/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Tab Limited and Tabcorp Limited intervening)
29/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
29/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria)
29/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Fourth Respondent)
30/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland)
30/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia)
12/10/2011 Reply to questions from the Court (Appellant)
30/03/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Betfair Pty Limited v. Racing New South Wales and Ors
Case No.
S116/2011
Related matters
S118/2011 - Sportsbet Pty Ltd v. State of New South Wales & Ors
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/11/2010 Federal Court of Australia (Keane CJ, Lander J, Buchanan J)
Catchwords
Constitutional law — Freedom of interstate trade — Applicant a licensed betting exchange domiciled in Tasmania — NSW legislative scheme prohibited use of race field information without approval and authorised imposition of fee as condition for approval ("Scheme") — Fee imposed on all wagering operators irrespective of whether domiciled in NSW — Where imposition of fee allegedly reduce applicant's commission by disproportionate amount compared to NSW operators — Whether practical effect of fee was to impose discriminatory burden of protectionist nature on interstate trade — Whether Scheme inconsistent with freedom of interstate trade, commerce and intercourse — Constitution, s 92 — Racing Administration Act 1998 (NSW), s 33(1).
Constitutional law — Freedom of interstate trade — Whether Scheme inconsistent with freedom of interstate trade, commerce and intercourse — Whether insufficient for interstate trader to show fees imposed greater business costs on interstate traders than intrastate traders — Whether necessary for interstate trader to show that interstate trader's competitive advantage derived from place of origin in another State or Territory and Scheme imposed discriminatory burden affecting that advantage — Whether Scheme protectionist if imposed with intention of protecting intrastate traders and fee not reasonably appropriate or adapted to non-protectionist objective — Whether validity of statutory prohibition, combined with administrative discretion to relax prohibition, to be determined by comparing interstate and intrastate traders' positions — Whether relevant or determinative that State and administrative bodies intend discretion over prohibition to be exercised to protect intrastate traders — Constitution, s 92 — Racing Administration Act 1998 (NSW), s 33(1).
Documents
11/03/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
24/03/2011 Notice of appeal
08/04/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/04/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
29/04/2011 Written submissions (Third Respondent)
06/05/2011 Written submissions (First and Second Respondents)
13/05/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia)
13/05/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia)
13/05/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria)
17/05/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
24/05/2011 Reply
19/07/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Queensland)
30/08/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
31/08/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
01/09/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
19/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Appellant)
26/09/2011 Supplementary submissions (First and Second Respondents)
26/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Third Respondent)
29/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth)
29/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria)
29/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia)
30/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland)
30/09/2011 Written submissions in response to questions from the Court (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia)
12/10/2011 Reply to submissions of parties and interveners on the Court's questions (Appellant)
30/03/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
HIH Claims Support Limited v. Insurance Australia Limited
Case No.
M24/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/09/2010 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Warren CJ, Mandie JA, Beach AJA)
Catchwords
Equity — Contribution — Equal and coordinate liability — Scaffolder Steele sub-contracted to Australian Grand Prix Corporation ("AGPC") — Steele held insurance policy with company in HIH group which, but for HIH collapse, responded to Steele's liability to AGPC — Applicant administrator of HIH Claim Support Scheme —AGPC held insurance policy with State Government Insurance Corporation ("SGIC") which extended to sub-contractors — SGIC's rights, liabilities and obligations vested in respondent — Whether applicant entitled to contribution from respondent — Whether liabilities of applicant and Steele and respondent and Steele equal and coordinate — Whether indemnities not coordinate because applicant may recover from liquidation of HIH — Whether equitable doctrine of contribution sufficiently flexible to do "practical justice" — Whether characterisation of separate contracts of insurance as "primary" and "secondary" prevents contribution — Whether relevant date for determining right to contribution is date of indemnity payment or date of casualty.
Documents
11/03/2011 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
25/03/2011 Notice of appeal
08/04/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/04/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
02/05/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
20/05/2011 Reply
02/06/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
22/08/2011 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Wynton Stone Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) v. MWH Australia Pty Ltd
Case Nos.
M158/2010; M159/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
3/11/2010 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal)(Warren CJ, Buchanan & Nettle JJA)
Catchwords
Practice and procedure — Pleadings — Trial judge stated, without objection, that pleaded issues would be treated as abandoned if not run in final submissions — Whether respondent abandoned breach of warranty claim.
Trade and commerce — Misleading and deceptive conduct — Warranty — Whether statement of fact in warranty constituted misleading and deceptive conduct — Causation — Reliance — Inferred reliance — Whether causation able to be inferred in absence of direct evidence of reliance — Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215; Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd [2010] VSCA 245.
Contracts — Construction and interpretation — Intention of parties — Deed of Novation — Whether release of "all claims and demands whatsoever in respect of the contract" intended to cover breaches of contract occurring before date of Deed — Application of "business commonsense point of view" where language not ambiguous on its face.
Documents
01/12/2010 Application for special leave to appeal
11/03/2011 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
08/04/2011 Written submissions (Applicant)
08/04/2011 Chronology
02/05/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
09/05/2011 Reply
08/06/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Special leave refused with costs)