Bromley v. The King
Case No.
A40/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/05/2018 Supreme Court of South Australia (Peek, Stanley and Nicholson JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Second or subsequent appeal – Further evidence – Where applicant and co-accused convicted of murder – Where, at trial, prosecution led evidence from eyewitness who suffered from schizoaffective disorder – Where applicant and co-accused appealed against convictions, including on ground that eyewitness's evidence unsafe, but appeals dismissed and subsequent petitions for mercy refused – Where applicant sought to appeal pursuant to s 353A of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) – Where s 353A empowers Full Court to hear second or subsequent appeal against conviction by person convicted on information if Court satisfied there "fresh and compelling evidence" that should, in "interests of justice", be considered on appeal – Where applicant adduced expert evidence concerning reliability of eyewitness in light of mental illness – Where Court of Appeal refused application, holding new evidence not "fresh" or "compelling", and not in "interests of justice" to consider new evidence – Whether new evidence "compelling" – Whether in "interests of justice" to consider applicant's evidence.
Documents*
24/11/2021 Application for special leave to appeal
16/09/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
11/11/2022 Written submissions (Applicant)
11/11/2022 Chronology (Applicant)
09/12/2022 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/12/2022 Reply
12/05/2023 Amended written submissions (Applicant)
17/05/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
17/05/2023 Outline of oral argument (Applicant)
16/05/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
18/05/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
13/12/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Young & Anor v. Chief Executive Officer (Housing)
Case No.
Case no D5/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
04/02/2022 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Court of Appeal) (Grant CJ, Southwood and Barr JJ)
Catchwords
Leases and tenancies – Residential tenancies – Damages for distress and disappointment – Where Ms Young leased home from respondent – Where home without font door in doorframe for 68 months – Where appellants commenced proceedings in Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") seeking compensation under s 122(1) of Residential Tenancies Act 1999 (NT) ("RTA") for breach of landlord's obligations to repair premises (s 57 of RTA), to provide reasonably secure home (s 49 RTA) or, alternatively, to ensure premises "habitable" (s 48 of RTA) – Where Tribunal found landlord failed to comply with obligation of repair (s 57) and awarded $100 compensation – Where Supreme Court set aside Tribunal's decision, holding failure to install door fundamental breach of respondent's obligation to provide reasonably secure premises, and awarded $10,200 compensation for resulting disappointment and distress for period of 68 months – Where Court of Appeal allowed appeal, determining only compensation for disappointment and distress resulting from physical inconvenience recoverable – Whether to recover damages for emotional disturbance or "mental distress" claim brought under s 122 of RTA it necessary to apply principles of remoteness and foreseeability – Whether claim for compensation for emotional disturbance of "mental distress" able to be founded on breach of s 49.
Documents
16/09/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
30/09/2022 Notice of appeal
04/11/2022 Written submissions (Appellants)
04/11/2022 Chronology (Appellants)
02/12/2022 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/12/2022 Reply
16/03/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
16/03/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
16/03/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
01/11/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v. Schokman
Case No.
Case no B43/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/03/2022 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Fraser, McMurdo & Mullins JJA)
Catchwords
Torts – Vicarious liability – Scope of employment – Opportunity or occasion for commission of tort – Where respondent asleep in appellant's staff accommodation when another employee urinated on face – Where trial judge concluded event exacerbated respondent's pre-existing conditions of narcolepsy and cataplexy, and suffered post-traumatic stress and adjustment disorder as result – Where respondent sued employer, alleging, relevantly, employee committed tort for which appellant, as employer, vicariously liable – Where primary judge found employee's act tortious, but concluded tort not committed in course of employee's employment – Where Court of Appeal applied Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC (2016) 258 CLR 134, holding employee occupying room as employee pursuant to obligations of employment contract and therefore requisite connection between employment and employee's actions – Whether event giving rise to respondent's injury within "course or scope of employment" – Proper approach to scope of vicarious liability discussed in Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC.
Documents
16/09/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
30/09/2022 Notice of appeal
04/11/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
04/11/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
02/12/2022 Written submissions (Respondent)
22/12/2022 Reply
09/03/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/03/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
09/03/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
02/08/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v. Thornton
Case No.
Case no B42/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
25/02/2022 Federal Court of Australia (Katzmann, SC Derrington, Banks-Smith JJ)
Catchwords
Immigration – Visa cancellation decision under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Substantial criminal record – Where respondent’s visa mandatorily cancelled following conviction for assaults occasioning bodily harm and for other offences, for which respondent sentenced to concurrent periods of imprisonment – Where respondent sought revocation of cancellation decision – Where Minister, in considering whether "another reason" why cancellation decision be revoked (s 501CA(4)(b)(ii)), took into account respondent's criminal history, including convictions which Queensland Court ordered that there be "no conviction" – Where s 184(2) of Youth Justice Act 1992 (QLD) ("YJA") provides, in relation to recording of convictions against child, finding of guilt without recording conviction not taken to be conviction for any purpose – Where s 85ZR(2) of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ("CA") provides where, under State law person to be taken to never been convicted of offence under law of State, person shall be taken in corresponding circumstances or for corresponding purpose, by any Commonwealth authority, never to have been convicted of offence – Whether, on proper construction of s 184(2) of YJA, s 85ZR(2) of CA engaged – Whether Minister took into account irrelevant consideration.
Administrative law – Judicial review – Jurisdictional error – Irrelevant consideration – Materiality – Whether consideration of irrelevant consideration material.
Documents
16/09/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
29/09/2022 Notice of appeal
04/11/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
04/11/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
02/12/2022 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/12/2022 Reply
08/03/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/03/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
08/03/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
14/06/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Facebook Inc v. Australian Information Commissioner & Anor
Case No.
Case no S137/2022
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
07/02/2022 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Perram & Yates JJ)
Catchwords
Practice and procedure – Service out of jurisdiction – Rule 10.43 of Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – Where Australian Information Commissioner commenced proceedings against appellant alleging events surrounding installation of application known as "This Is Your Digital Life" and Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal involved contraventions of Privacy Act 1998 (Cth) – Where Commissioner successful in establishing prima facie case on application to serve appellant out of jurisdiction – Where appellant conditionally appeared and sought to set aside service – Where primary judge and Full Court refused to set aside service – Whether prima facie case appellant "carr[ied] on business in Australia" within meaning of 5B(3)(b) of Privacy Act – Whether prima facie case appellant "collected… personal information in Australia" within meaning of s 5B(3)(c) of Privacy Act.
Documents
16/09/2022 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
29/09/2022 Notice of appeal
29/09/2022 Submitting appearance (Second Respondent)
04/11/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
04/11/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
02/12/2022 Written submissions (First Respondent)
23/12/2022 Reply
04/01/2023 Proposed submissions seeking leave to be heard as intervener (Andrew Hamilton)
07/03/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
(Including pronouncement of orders)
07/03/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
07/03/2023 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)