[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] High Court of Australia Bulletins

You are here: 

High Court of Australia Bulletin [2010] HCAB 11 (19 November 2010)

Last Updated: 19 November 2010

HIGH COURT BULLETIN

Produced by the High Court of Australia Library

[2010] HCAB 11 (19 November 2010)

A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, and refused special leave to appeal.

1: CASES HANDED DOWN

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the November 2010 sittings.

Selected Seeds Pty Ltd v QBEMM Pty Ltd & Ors

B16/2010: [2010] HCA 37.

Judgment delivered: 3 November 2010.

Coram: French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Insurance — Product liability insurance — Insurance policy — Indemnity — Exclusion clause — Appellant seed merchant sold contaminated seed — Planting of seed by third party resulted in damage to property — Exclusion of liability caused by or arising from “the failure of any Product to correctly fulfil its intended use or function” — Proper construction of exclusion clause — Whether liability for damage arose out of failure of product to fulfil its intended use or function — Distinction between product failing to fulfil intended use or function and causing positive harm.

Words and phrases — “intended use or function”.

Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2009] QCA 286; (2009) 15 ANZ Ins Cas ¶61-821.

The Queen v Nguyen

M23/2010: [2010] HCA 38.

Judgment delivered: 3 November 2010.

Coram: Hayne, Heydon , Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Appeal — Verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence — Respondent found guilty by jury of murder and attempted murder by complicity — Court of Appeal quashed convictions on ground that verdicts “unsafe and unsatisfactory” in the sense that verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence — Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory — Whether reasonably open to jury on the whole of the evidence to convict respondent of murder and attempted murder — Task of appellate court.

Criminal law — Murder — Practice and procedure — Directions to jury — Whether alternative verdict of manslaughter sufficiently left to jury — Whether reasonably open to jury to return alternative verdict of manslaughter — Whether failure sufficiently to leave alternative verdict to jury constituted a wrong decision on a question of law — Whether no substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred.

Words and phrases — “unsafe and unsatisfactory”, “substantial miscarriage of justice”.

Appealed from Vic SC (CA): [2010] VSCA 23.

State of South Australia v Totani & Anor

A1/2010: [2010] HCA 39.

Judgment delivered: 11 November 2010.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Constitutional law (Cth) — Judicial power of Commonwealth — Constitution, Ch III — Vesting of federal jurisdiction in State courts — Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 (SA) (“Act”) — Section 10(1) of Act permits Attorney-General to make declaration in respect of organisation, if satisfied members associate for purpose of organising, planning, facilitating, supporting or engaging in serious criminal activity, and organisation represents risk to public safety and order — Section 14(1) of Act provides Magistrates Court of South Australia (“Court”) must, on application by Commissioner of Police, make control order (contravention of which is a crime) imposing restrictions on freedom of association of defendant if satisfied defendant is member of declared organisation under s 10(1) — Section 35(1) of Act creates offence of associating with member of declared organisation or person the subject of control order on not less than six occasions during 12 month period — Whether making control order requires determination by Court of what defendant has done or may do, or any determination of criminal guilt — Effect of Attorney-General’s declaration on adjudicative process — Whether Court enlisted to implement legislative and executive policy — Whether task given to Court repugnant to, or incompatible with, institutional integrity.

Words and phrases — “control order”, “institutional integrity”, “judicial power”, “member of declared organisation”, “serious criminal activity”.

Appealed from SA SC (CCA): [2009] SASC 301; (2009) 105 SASR 244; (2009) 259 ALR 673; (2009) 231 FLR 422.

Commissioner of Taxation v Anstis

M64/2010: [2010] HCA 40.

Judgment delivered: 11 November 2010.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Heydon, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Income tax — Assessable income — Respondent received periodic payments of youth allowance under Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) — Whether receipts income according to ordinary concepts.

Income tax — Allowable deductions — Respondent incurred certain expenses in undertaking university study — Respondent required to undertake full-time study to establish and retain entitlement to youth allowance — Whether expenses incurred in gaining or producing assessable income — Whether expenses of a private nature.

Words and phrases — “incurred in gaining or producing”, “ordinary income”, “private or domestic nature”.

Appealed from FCA FC: [2009] FCAFC 154; (2009) 180 FCR 288; (2009) 73 ATR 483.

Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors; Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors

M61/2010 & M69/2010: [2010] HCA 41.

Judgment delivered: 11 November 2010.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Error of law — Refugees — Migration — Offshore processing — Plaintiffs were “offshore entry persons” under Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“Migration Act”) — Plaintiffs detained under s 189(3) of Migration Act — Each claimed Australia owed him protection obligations under Refugees Convention as amended by Refugees Protocol — Each plaintiff precluded from making valid visa application unless Minister decided in public interest to allow: s 46A of Migration Act — Minister had power to grant visa in absence of valid application: s 195A of Migration Act — Each plaintiff subject to “Refugee Status Assessment” by departmental officer and subsequent “Independent Merits Review” by independent contractor — Each departmental officer and independent reviewer concluded plaintiff not a person to whom Australia had protection obligations — Powers under ss 46A and 195A “may only be exercised by the Minister personally” — Minister not under duty to consider whether to exercise power under s 46A or s 195A — Whether continuing detention lawful because assessment and review were steps taken under and for purposes of Migration Act — Whether Minister had decided to consider exercising power under s 46A or s 195A of Migration Act in every case where an offshore entry person claimed to be owed protection obligations — Whether those who conducted assessment and review bound to afford procedural fairness to plaintiffs and act according to law — Whether each review procedurally fair and undertaken in accordance with law.

Constitutional law (Cth) — Validity of Commonwealth laws — Section 75(v) of Constitution — Whether s 46A of Migration Act invalid because consideration of exercise of power could not be enforced — Whether Minister's power arbitrary.

High Court — Original jurisdiction — Constitutional writs and orders — Minister not bound to consider exercising powers under s 46A or s 195A of Migration Act — Whether mandamus available — Whether certiorari would have practical utility — Whether declaration would produce foreseeable consequences for the parties.

These applications for an order to show cause were filed in the original jurisdiction of the High Court.

2: CASES RESERVED

The following cases have been reserved or part heard for judgment by the High Court of Australia.

**** Indicates cases reserved or part heard for judgment since High Court Bulletin 10 [2010] HCAB 10.

Administrative Law

See Practice and Procedure: British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (as Administratrix of the Estate of Donald Henry Laurie and on her own behalf) & Ors.

Citizenship and Migration

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZGUR & Anor

S179/2010: [2010] HCATrans 250.

Date heard: 24 September 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ.

Catchwords:

Citizenship and Migration — Migration — Review of decisions — Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) — Conduct of review — Whether failure by RRT to consider using power under s 427(1)(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to obtain a medical report for purposes of review is a jurisdictional error — Whether absence of reference to consideration of using power in s 427(1)(d) in RRT’s statement of reasons provides sufficient or proper basis for inferring lack of consideration — Where respondent had provided material from psychiatrist and from friends to explain deficiencies in evidence — Where migration agent requested independent assessment of respondent’s mental health be arranged by RRT — Where adverse finding subsequently made about respondent’s credibility — Where RRT did not mention request for independent assessment in statement of reasons.

Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 171; (2010) 114 ALD 112.

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS & Ors

S147/2010: [2010] HCATrans 247.

Date heard: 21 September 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Citizenship and Migration — Migration — Review of decisions — Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) — Conduct of review — Weight to be given to particular evidence or information reviewing court considers probative — Married couple from Nepal applied for protection visas after arrival in Australia based on claims by husband of persecution — Husband produced three letters highly corroborative of claims of persecution prior to first of three adverse RRT hearings — Third RRT referred to letters but expressly stated no weight given to them — Whether distinction between “relevant consideration” RRT obliged to consider on one hand and evidence in support of claim reviewing court considers probative on other — Whether “failure to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration” or failure to engage in “active intellectual process” equate to jurisdictional error where particular evidence or information referred to, but reviewing court considers greater or different consideration of that evidence should have occurred.

Appealed from FCA: [2009] FCA 1577; (2009) 113 ALD 270.

Constitutional Law

****Detective Senior Constable Hogan v Hinch

M105/2010: [2010] HCATrans 284 and [2010] HCATrans 285.

Date heard: 2-3 November 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Catchwords:

Constitutional law — Operation and effect of Commonwealth Constitution — Restrictions on Commonwealth and State legislation — Rights and freedoms implied in Commonwealth Constitution — Freedom of political communication — Validity of legislation allowing courts to prohibit publication of names of serious sex offenders if in public interest to do so — Where applicant at public rally stated names of two offenders whose names were subject of suppression orders — Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005 (Vic) s 42.

Constitutional law — Operation and effect of Commonwealth Constitution — Chapter III of Constitution— Whether implication from Ch III that proceedings be conducted in public and details of proceedings be open to public except where interests of justice otherwise require — Whether “public interest” sufficient reason for not adhering to principle of open justice — State courts invested with judicial power of the Commonwealth — Validity of legislation allowing courts to prohibit publication of name of serious sex offenders if in public interest to do so — Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005 (Vic) s 42.

Removed from Melbourne Magistrates Court: X02916632.

Rowe & Anor v Electoral Commissioner & Anor

M101/2010: [2010] HCA 204, [2010] HCA 205, [2010] HCA 206 and [2010] HCA 207.

Date heard: 4-5 August 2010 – Orders made on 6 August 2010. Written reasons of the Court to be published at a future date.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Constitutional law — Operation and effect of Commonwealth Constitution — Restrictions on Commonwealth and State legislation — Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) ss 102(4) (new enrolments), 102(4AA) (transfer of enrolment) and 155 (closing of the rolls) — Whether invalid as contrary to ss 7 and 24 of the Constitution — Whether beyond legislative powers of the Commonwealth conferred by ss 51(xxxvi) and 30 of the Constitution or any other head of legislative power — Whether beyond what is reasonably appropriate and adapted, or proportionate, to the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative government.

This matter was brought in the original jurisdiction of the High Court.

Contracts

Port of Portland Pty Ltd v State of Victoria

M62/2010: [2010] HCATrans 220 and [2010] HCATrans 221.

Date heard: 26 and 27 August 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Contracts — Interpretation — Enforcement of promise — Contract for sale of assets by public authority — Agreement to sell assets and business of Port of Portland Authority — Agreement by respondent to amend land tax legislation — Agreement for allowance in appellant’s favour for certain payments of land tax if amendments not made — Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding land sale agreement unenforceable as dispensation or exemption from land tax laws contrary to Bill of Rights 1688 (1 Wm & M. 2 c 2) art 12, as applied by Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 (Vic) s 8 — Whether promise by Minister, on behalf of Crown, to allow adjustment in purchase price because of failure by Parliament to amend law imposing tax enforceable.

Appealed from Vic SC (CA): [2009] VSCA 282.

Conveyancing

Marcolongo v Chen & Anor

S114/2010: [2010] HCATrans 253.

Date heard: 30 September 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Heydon, Crennan and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Conveyancing — Invalid conveyance as a result of fraud — Intent to defraud creditors — Dishonest intent — Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) (“the Act”) s 37A — Whether sufficient material upon which to conclude there was requisite intent to defraud appellant — Whether alienation of property with intent to defraud creditors, within meaning of s 37 of the Act, requires real or actual honest intent.

Appealed from NSW SC (CA): [2009] NSWCA 326; (2009) 260 ALR 353; (2009) 14 BPR 27,153.

Criminal Law

****SKA v The Queen

S100/2010: [2010] HCATrans 290.

Date heard: 9 November 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ.

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Appeal and new trial — Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence — Test to be applied — Where appellate court had available to it videotape of interview of complainant played at trial — Where appellate court did not view videotaped evidence — Whether appellate court erred in application of test by not viewing videotaped evidence — M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.

Criminal law — Appeal and new trial — Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence — Opinion of trial judge — Where inconsistencies in complainant’s evidence — Where trial judge said “impossible to see how any jury acting reasonably could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt” — Where appellate court made no reference to opinion of trial judge — Whether appellate court erred in not adverting to opinion of trial judge.

Appealed from NSW SC (CCA): [2009] NSWCCA 186.

****Roach v The Queen

B41/2010: [2010] HCATrans 288.

Date heard: 5 November 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Coram: French CJ, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ.

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Evidence — Propensity, tendency and co-incidence — Admissibility and relevancy — Propensity evidence — Evidence of uncharged acts — Appellant convicted of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm — “Relationship evidence” — Principles from Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 (“Pfennig”) — History of violence and of domestic relationship between appellant and complainant — Whether Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) (“the Act”) s 132B allows admission of evidence of relevant history without application of Pfennig test — Whether requirement of fairness in admission of evidence in s 130 of the Act mandates application of Pfennig test to admission of relationship evidence — Whether unfair to admit evidence unless, as stated in Phillips v The Queen (2006) 225 CLR 303 at 308, when “viewed in the context of the prosecution case, there is no reasonable view of the [relationship] evidence consistent with the innocence of the accused”.

Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2009] QCA 360.

Stubley v State of Western Australia

P29/2010: [2010] HCATrans 269.

Date heard: 20 October 2010 – Orders made on 20 October 2010. Written reasons of the Court to be published at a future date.

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility and relevancy — Propensity evidence — Evidence of uncharged acts — Appellant former psychiatrist charged with offences relating to sexual activity with two former patients — Evidence of sexual activity with three further former patients adduced at trial — Whether trial judge erred in ruling evidence had significant probative value — Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 31A.

Appealed from WA SC (CA): [2010] WASCA 36.

Braysich v The Queen

P32/2010: [2010] HCATrans 268.

Date heard: 19 October 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Particular offences — Financial transaction offences — Creating false or misleading appearance of active trading in securities — Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 998(1) — Where “deeming” provision relied on by Crown — Where applicant deemed to have created false or misleading appearance of active trading by virtue of entering into or carrying out share transaction not involving change in beneficial ownership: s 998(5) — Where defence available if proved that purpose of transaction was not or did not include creating false or misleading appearance of active trading: s 998(6)— Where applicant did not expressly state in examination-in-chief that purpose was not to create false or misleading appearance of active trading — Where trial judge directed jury defence not available — Whether sufficient evidence to support defence — Whether direction to jury that defence unavailable correct.

Criminal law — Evidence — Where Crown adduced expert evidence to show that share trading transactions were likely to create a false or misleading appearance of active trading in order to rebut any defence applicant might raise — Where applicant sought to adduce expert evidence to refute Crown evidence — Where trial judge ruled defence not available — Whether applicant’s expert evidence admissible.

Appealed from WA SC (CCA): [2009] WASCA 178; (2009) 260 ALR 719; (2009) 238 FLR 1; (2009) 74 ACSR 387.

Hili v The Queen & Jones v The Queen

S142/2010 & S143/2010: [2010] HCATrans 248.

Date heard: 22 September 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Sentence — Sentencing orders — Pre-release period or minimum term — New South Wales — Federal offenders — Where offenders convicted of offences relating to tax evasion — Where sentence increased on appeal — Where appellate court stated that “‘norm’ for a period of mandatory imprisonment under the Commonwealth legislation is between 60 and 66% [of the head sentence]” — Whether there is norm or starting point expressed as percentage of head sentence for period of imprisonment — Whether such norm applies to all federal offences.

Criminal law — Appeal and review — Appeal against sentence — Appeals by Crown — Whether minimum reasons given by appellate court for decision to increase sentence of federal offender based on manifest inadequacy of sentence.

Criminal law — Sentence — Non-custodial orders — Recognisance release orders — Whether recognisance release order separate from overall order appropriate — Where three separate offences — Whether Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requires one recognisance order for all offences or separate recognisance orders for each offence — Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 19AB and 19AC.

Appealed from NSW SC (CCA): [2010] NSWCCA 108.

Equity

See Taxation and Duties: Commissioner of State Taxation v Cyril Henschke Pty Ltd & Ors.

Practice and Procedure

British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (as Administratrix of the Estate of Donald Henry Laurie and on her own behalf) & Ors

S138/2010: [2010] HCATrans 223.

Date heard: 1 September 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Heydon, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure — Courts and judges — Disqualification of judges for interest or bias — Apprehended bias — Judge’s refusal to recuse himself from proceedings — Where judge previously made findings adverse to party in interlocutory judgment in separate proceedings — Kind of characteristics and knowledge to be attributed to fair minded lay observer in terms of whether reasonable to apprehend that judge might not bring impartial and unprejudiced mind to later proceedings — Whether fair minded lay observer to take into account distinction between interlocutory hearing and final hearing, including differences in applicable rules of evidence — Whether fair minded lay observer to take into account subsequent statements by judge who expresses willingness to maintain open mind — Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288.

Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Bias — Whether nature of findings in previous interlocutory judgment gives impression that judge might not bring impartial and unprejudiced mind to later proceedings.

Appealed from NSW SC (CA): [2009] NSWCA 414.

Real Property

****Springfield Land Corporation (No 2) Pty Ltd & Anor v State of Queensland & Anor

B39/2010: [2010] HCATrans 291.

Date heard: 10 November 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ.

Catchwords:

Real property — Compulsory acquisition of land — Compensation — Assessment — Adjoining land — Where parties agreed compensation would be determined using Acquisition of Land Act 1963 (Qld) (“Act”) — Where disagreement as to compensation referred to arbitrator — Whether s 20(3) of the Act requires causal connection between enhancement in value and carrying out of purpose for which land was acquired — Whether characterisation of purpose for which land was acquired should be broad or narrow — Whether characterisation of purpose for which land was acquired a question of fact — Whether enhancement of value of land adjoining land compulsorily acquired which arose prior to and independently of expansion of purpose for which land was acquired can be set off against assessed compensation under s 20(3) of the Act — Acquisition of Land Act 1963 (Qld).

Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2009] QCA 381; (2009) 171 LGERA 38.

See also Taxation and Duties: TEC Desert Pty Ltd & Anor v Commissioner of State Revenue.

Taxation and Duties

TEC Desert Pty Ltd & Anor v Commissioner of State Revenue

P26/2010: [2010] HCATrans 266.

Date heard: 18 October 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Catchwords:

Taxes and duties — Stamp duty — Sale, transfer or conveyance of interest in land — Sale agreement — Appellant entered into sale agreement to allow vendor to divest itself of responsibility to generate power for mining operations in favour of appellants — Respondent assessed sale agreement as being subject to stamp duty under s 74(1) of Stamps Act 1921 (WA) (“Act”) which provides “Every contract or agreement, howsoever executed, for the sale of any estate or interest in any property shall be charged with the same ad valorem duty to be paid by the purchaser as if it were an actual conveyance on sale of the estate, interest or property contracted or agreed to be sold.” — Taxpayers objected on basis that there was no relevant transfer of land or any interest in land — Whether sale agreement an agreement under s 74(1) of Act.

Real property law — Law of fixtures — Interest held in fixtures by person who does not own land to which they are attached — Whether disposition of interest in fixtures is sale of an interest in land.

Words and phrases — “sale”.

Appealed from WA SC (CA): [2009] WASCA 128.

Commissioner of State Taxation v Cyril Henschke Pty Ltd & Ors

A4/2010: [2010] HCATrans 203.

Date heard: 3 August 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Kiefel JJ.

Catchwords:

Taxation and duties — Stamp duties — Deed of retirement — Conveyance — Partnership — Partners executed a Retirement Deed (“Deed”) — Appellant assessed stamp duty on Deed on basis that it effected a transfer of retiree’s interest in the goodwill of partnership — Section 60(d) of the Stamp Duties Act 1923 (SA) provides, inter alia, that conveyance on sale includes “every other assurance or instrument, by which or by virtue of which any real or personal property, upon the sale thereof, is legally or equitably transferred to, or vested in, the purchaser or any other person on his behalf or by his direction” — Whether Deed effected a conveyance within the meaning of s 60 of the Act — Whether stamp duty to be levied on Deed.

Equity — Equitable interest — Interest of partner in partnership assets — Chose in action — Beneficial interest of partner in relation to partnership — Dissolution of partnership — Whether equitable right should be categorised as a chose in action — Relationship between beneficial interest and chose in action of partner — Whether retiree’s interest extinguished or conveyed.

Appealed from SA SC: [2009] SASC 148; (2009) 104 SASR 22.

Aid/Watch Incorporated v Commissioner of Taxation

S82/2010: [2010] HCATrans 154; [2010] HCATrans 155.

Date heard: 15-16 June 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Taxation and duties — Charities — Characterisation of main purpose — Scope of political purpose where activities also include a charitable purpose — Appellant is a non-governmental organisation which had income tax exempt status and charitable status revoked — Whether the law as to “political disqualification” of an otherwise charitable institution should form part of the law of Australia: Bowman v Secular Society Ltd [1917] AC 406; extended in McGovern v Attorney-General [1982] Ch 321 — Whether seeking to influence government policy through the advancement of public debate constitutes political debate and therefore disentitles charitable status — Royal North Shore Hospital of Sydney v Attorney-General (NSW) (1938) 60 CLR 396.

Appealed from FCA FC: [2009] FCAFC 128.

Torts

****Miller v Miller

P25/2010: [2010] HCATrans 286.

Date heard: 4 November 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Catchwords:

Torts — Negligence — Defences to negligence — Duty of care — Duty of care in joint criminal exercise — Duty of care arising between driver and passenger — Motor vehicle accident — Unlawful use of motor vehicle — Appellant and two others stole car in which motor vehicle accident later occurred — Respondent not involved in theft of motor vehicle, but was driving vehicle at time of accident — Respondent pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death, dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm and driving under influence of alcohol — Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that respondent owed no duty of care to applicant as passenger where appellant was participant in theft of vehicle — Whether Court of Appeal erred in its application of Gala v Preston (1991) 172 CLR 243 which was distinguished by trial judge on its facts — Whether doctrine of joint illegal enterprise as defence to negligence requires restatement — Imbree v McNeilly (2008) 236 CLR 510 — Cook v Cook (1986) 162 CLR 376.

Appealed from WA SC (CA): [2009] WASCA 199; (2009) 54 MVR 367.

Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services & Anor

P31/2010: [2010] HCATrans 267.

Date heard: 19 October 2010 — Judgment reserved.

Catchwords:

Torts — Negligence — Essentials of action for negligence — Duty of care — Reasonable foreseeability of damage — Where appellant injured while operating high-pressure vacuum hose — Where company insured by first respondent provided vacuum hose — Where appellant not employee of company — Whether duty of cared owed by company to appellant — Whether risk of injury reasonably foreseeable — Whether any duty of care owed was breached — Where modifications made to hose system following injury to appellant — Whether subsequent changes to work system relevant to analysis of whether any duty of care breached — Where speculation as to precise mechanism whereby appellant injured – Whether evidence as to how, precisely, accident occurred necessary before causation can be found — Nelson v John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 201.

Appealed from WA SC (CA): [2010] WASCA 50; (2010) 194 IR 74.

3: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

The following cases are ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia.

**** Indicates cases made ready for hearing since High Court Bulletin 10 [2010] HCAB 10.

Constitutional Law

Wainohu v State of New South Wales

S164/2010

Catchwords:

Constitutional law — Operation and effect of Commonwealth Constitution — Chapter III — Kable doctrine — Plaintiff member of Hells Angels Motorcycle Club (“Hells Angels”) — Application made by Commission of NSW Police Force to Supreme Court of NSW for declaration under Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2009 (NSW) (“the Act”) in respect of Hells Angels — Where application to be heard by “eligible judge” as defined in the Act — Where some evidence classified “criminal intelligence” under the Act and withheld from legal representatives of Hells Angels — Where ex parte hearing held under the Act to allow eligible judge to determine whether certain evidence “properly classified” by Commissioner of Police — Whether the Act or any provision undermines institutional integrity of Supreme Court of NSW — Whether the Act or any provision outside legislative powers of Parliament of NSW — Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2009 (NSW).

This writ of summons was filed in the original jurisdiction of the High Court.

KPMG (a firm) v Commonwealth & Anor

M66/2010

Catchwords:

Constitutional law — Operation and effect of Commonwealth Constitution — Powers with respect to property — Power to acquire property on just terms (Constitution s 51(xxxi)) — Acquisition of property — Where Australian Securities and Investment Commission (“ASIC”) has power to cause proceedings to be brought in the name of a company for recovery of damages or property in certain circumstances — Where ASIC caused proceedings to be brought against plaintiff in the name of various companies — Whether the commencement of proceedings in the name of a company by ASIC effects an acquisition of property on other than just terms — Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 50.

This writ of summons was filed in the original jurisdiction of the High Court.

Native Title

Edwards & Ors v Santos Ltd & Ors

S153/2010.

Catchwords:

Native title — Permissible future acts — Where parties negotiating an indigenous land use agreement — Where defendants asserted during course of negotiations that grant of petroleum lease under Petroleum Act 1923 (Qld) is a “future act” within meaning of Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (“the Act”) and so not subject to right to negotiate provisions of the Act and should not be part of indigenous land use agreement negotiations — Where plaintiffs disagreed and sought declaratory and injunctive relief in Federal Court of Australia — Whether plaintiffs required to prove native title in order to obtain such relief — Whether plaintiffs’ claim was one to enforce procedural rights under Pt 2 Div 3 of the Act or whether claim was to have Federal Court of Australia resolve dispute between parties to indigenous land use agreement — Application of The Lardil Peoples v State of Queensland (2001) 108 FCR 453.

This application to show cause was filed in the original jurisdiction of the High Court.

4: SPECIAL LEAVE GRANTED

The following cases have been granted special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

**** Indicates cases granted special leave to appeal since High Court Bulletin 10 [2010] HCAB 10.

Administrative Law

****Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart & Anor

P27/2010: [2010] HCATrans 292.

Date heard: Determined without oral argument — Special leave granted.

Catchwords:

Administrative law — First respondent summoned under Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (“the Act”) s 28 — First respondent declined to answer questions in relation to husband’s activities on basis of common law privilege against spousal incrimination — Whether distinct common law privilege against spousal incrimination exists — Whether privilege abrogated by s 30 of the Act — Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth).

Appealed from FCA FC: [2010] FCAFC 89; (2010) 185 FCR 409; (2010) 271 ALR 53.

Arbitration

See Insurance: Westport Insurance Corporation & Ors v Gordian Runoff Limited

Constitutional Law

Jemena Asset Management (3) Pty Ltd & Ors v Coinvest Limited

M6/2010: [2010] HCATrans 228.

Date heard: 3 September 2010 — Special leave granted on limited grounds.

Catchwords:

Constitutional law — Operation and effect of Commonwealth Constitution — Inconsistency of laws (Constitution, s 109) — Commonwealth legislative scheme imposing obligation upon employers to pay for long service leave — State law imposing obligation upon employers in construction industry to contribute to fund for portable long service leave entitlements — Whether inconsistency between State and federal legislative schemes — Construction Industry Long Service Leave Act 1997 (Vic).

Appealed from FCA FC: [2009] FCAFC 176; (2009) 180 FCR 576; (2009) 263 ALR 374; (2009) 191 IR 236.

See also Criminal Law: Momcilovic v The Queen.

Contracts

Shoalhaven City Council v Firedam Civil Engineering Pty Limited

S118/2010: [2010] HCATrans 234.

Date heard: 3 September 2010 — Special leave granted.

Catchwords:

Contracts — Building, engineering and related contracts — Settlement of disputes — Expert determination — Where express contractual obligation to give reasons in expert determination — Nature and extent of contractual obligation to give reasons — Whether expert determination contained inconsistency in reasons — Whether inconsistency in reasons means expert did not give reasons for determination as a whole — Whether inconsistency in reasons means contractual obligation not fulfilled and determination not binding on parties.

Appealed from NSW SC (CA): [2010] NSWCA 59.

Corporations

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed)

P27/2010: [2010] HCATrans 276.

Date heard: 21 October 2010 — Special leave granted.

Catchwords:

Corporations — Winding up — Winding up in insolvency — Where respondent presumed to be insolvent once receiver was appointed: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459C — Where respondent required to rebut presumption in an application for winding up in insolvency — Respondent disputed extent of indebtedness — Whether company should be wound-up on basis of disputed debt — Whether court may determine merits of disputed debt in course of winding up proceeding.

Appealed from FCA FC: [2010] FCAFC 49; (2010) 78 ACSR 487.

Criminal Law

**** Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Poniatowska

A20/2010: [2010] HCATrans 304.

Date heard: 12 November 2010 — Referred to an enlarged Court.

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Offences — Obtain financial advantage from Commonwealth, knowing of lack of entitlement: s 135.2 Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) — Respondent failed to declare $71,000 in commission payments while receiving parenting benefit from Centrelink — Whether omitting to perform act a physical element of offence — Whether existence of legal duty or obligation to perform act, imposed by offence provision or other Commonwealth statute, determinative of question about physical element — Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ss 4.3 and 135.2.

Words and phrases — “engages in conduct”.

Appealed from SA SC (FC): [2010] SASCFC 19.

White v The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA); Bowers & Anor v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

P17/2010 and P12/2010: [2010] HCATrans 277.

Date heard: 21 October 2010 — Special leave granted.

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Procedure — Confiscation of proceeds of crime and related matters — Restraining or freezing order — Where applicants did not own and have effective control of property where offences committed — Where freezing orders made over applicants’ property in place of property where offences took place: Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA) (“the Act”) s 22 — Whether property where offences took place was “crime-used” property as defined by s 146 of the Act — Scope of court’s power to set aside a freezing order under s 82 of the Act — Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA) s 22.

Words and phrases — “crime-used”, “criminal use”.

Appealed from WA SC (CA): [2010] WASCA 47 and [2010] WASCA 46.

Momcilovic v The Queen

M28/2010: [2010] HCATrans 227.

Date heard: 3 September 2010 — Special leave granted.

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Particular offences — Drug offences — Possession — — Where person deemed to be in possession of drugs “upon any land or premises” occupied by person, unless person satisfies court to the contrary: Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) (“the Act”) s 5 — Whether s 5 of the Act creates legal onus on accused to disprove possession on balance of probabilities or evidential onus to show that he or she was not in possession.

Criminal law — Appeal — Grounds of appeal — Conduct of trial judge — Misdirection or non-direction — Where drugs found in applicant’s home — Where applicant and her partner gave evidence that drugs were her partner’s and that applicant had no knowledge of them — Whether trial judge should have directed jury that prosecution must prove applicant’s knowledge of drugs in order to prove possession.

Human rights — Presumption of innocence — Statutory reversal of burden of proof of possession of drugs — Where Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (“Charter”) s 32 provides “[s]o far as it is possible to do so consistently with their purpose, all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights” — Whether “possible” to interpret s 5 of the Act compatibly with right to presumption of innocence — Charter ss 7(2), 25(1), 32(1).

Statutes — Acts of Parliament — Interpretation — Function of courts — Whether s 32 of Charter creates “special rule of interpretation” allowing court to depart from legislative intention of enacting Parliament to ensure compatibility with human rights — Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30.

Constitutional law — Operation and effect of Commonwealth Constitution — Chapter III — Federal jurisdiction of State courts — Local limitations of State court — Whether s 32 of the Charter confers a legislative function on State courts — Whether institutional integrity of State courts impaired — Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51.

High Court and Federal Court — High Court of Australia — Appellate jurisdiction — Where relief sought includes order setting aside declaration of inconsistent interpretation under s 36 of Charter made by intermediate appellate court — Whether High Court has jurisdiction under s 73 of Constitution to grant relief sought.

Appealed from Vic SC (CA): [2010] VSCA 50; (2010) 265 ALR 751.

Lacey v The Attorney-General of Queensland

B39/2009: [2010] HCATrans 162.

Date heard: 24 June 2010 — Special leave granted.

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Appeal and new trial — Appeal against sentence — Appeals by Crown — Principles applied by appellate court to Crown appeals — Rule in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 — Whether s 669A of the Criminal Code 1889 (Qld) requires error on the part of the sentencing court before appellate jurisdiction enlivened — Whether inclusion of the words “unfettered discretion” in s 669A removes the requirement for error on the part of the sentencing court before appellate court can substitute an alternative sentence.

Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2009] QCA 274.

Equity

Byrnes & Anor v Kendle

A6/2010: [2010] HCATrans 226.

Date heard: 3 September 2010 — Special leave granted.

Catchwords:

Equity — Trusts and trustees — Powers, duties, rights and liabilities of trustees — Purchase or lease of trust property — Respondent husband held legal title to property but held half-share on trust for wife, the second applicant — Respondent leased property to his son but failed to collect rent — Where second applicant aware of failure to collect rent and did not object — Whether respondent had a duty as trustee of the property to collect rent — Whether second applicant was able to and in fact did consent to the respondent’s actions.

Appealed from SA SC (FC): [2009] SASC 385.

High Court and Federal Court

See Criminal Law: Momcilovic v The Queen.

Human Rights

See Criminal Law: Momcilovic v The Queen.

Insurance

Westport Insurance Corporation & Ors v Gordian Runoff Limited

S110/2010: [2010] HCATrans 233.

Date heard: 3 September 2010 — Special leave granted on limited grounds. Referred to an enlarged Court on limited grounds.

Catchwords:

Insurance — Reinsurance — Application of Insurance Act 1902 (NSW) (“the Act”) s 18B to reinsurance contracts.

Arbitration — The award — Appeal or judicial review — Grounds for remitting or setting aside — Error of law or error in relation to mixed question of fact and law — Where arbitrators found existence of underlying insurance contract to be cause of respondent’s loss within meaning of s 18B(1) of the Act — Whether error of law or mixed error of fact and law to conclude that s 18B(1) of the Act had no application to reinsurance contract — Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW) ss 38(5)(b)(i) and 38(5)(b)(ii).

Arbitration — The award — Appeal or judicial review — Grounds for remitting or setting aside — Whether arbitrators gave adequate reasons for making the award — Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW) s 29(1).

Appealed from NSW SC (CA): [2010] NSWCA 57; (2010) 267 ALR 74.

Restitution

Equuscorp Pty Ltd (formerly Equus Financial Services Ltd) v Haxton; Equuscorp Pty Ltd (formerly Equus Financial Services Ltd) v Bassat; Equuscorp Pty Ltd (formerly Equus Financial Services Ltd) v Cunningham Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd
M13/2010, M14/2010 and M16/2010-M18/2010: [2010] HCATrans 231.

Date heard: 3 September 2010 — Special leave granted.

Catchwords:

Restitution — Restitution resulting from unenforceable, incomplete, illegal or void contracts — Recovery of money paid or property transferred — Respondents investors in tax driven blueberry farming schemes — Funds for farm management fees lent to investors by Rural Finance Ltd (“Rural”) — Applicant lent money to Rural — Rural subsequently wound up — Loan contracts between respondents and Rural assigned to applicant — Applicant’s enforcement of contractual debts statute-barred — Where parties agreed in court below loan contracts illegal and unenforceable — Whether total failure of consideration — Whether respondents’ retention of loan funds “unjust”.

Restitution — Assignment of rights of restitution — Where Deed of Assignment assigning Rural’s loans to applicant included assignment of “legal right to such debts ... and all legal and other remedies” — Whether rights of restitution able to be assigned — Whether rights of restitution assigned in this case.

Appealed from Vic SC (CA): [2010] VSCA 1; (2010) 265 ALR 336.

Statutes

See Criminal Law: Momcilovic v The Queen.

Taxes and Duties

Commissioner of Taxation v BHP Billiton Limited; Commissioner of Taxation v BHP Billiton Petroleum (North West Shelf) Pty Ltd; Commissioner of Taxation v Broken Hill Proprietary Company Pty Ltd; Commissioner of Taxation v BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd

M30/2010-M33/2010; M34/2010 and M36 2010; M35/2010; M37/2010 and M38/2010: [2010] HCATrans 229.

Date heard: 3 September 2010 — Special leave granted.

Catchwords:

Taxes and duties — Income tax and related legislation — Deductions — BHP Billiton Finance Limited (“BHP Finance”) and BHP Billiton Direct Reduced Iron Pty Ltd (“BHP Direct”) wholly owned subsidiaries of BHP Billiton Limited — BHP Direct partly financed capital expenditure on processing plant with funds borrowed from BHP Finance — BHP Finance classified large portion of loans to BHP Direct as irrecoverable after carrying value of BHP Direct’s assets written down — BHP Direct able to claim capital allowance tax deductions for expenditure incurred on processing plant — Capital allowance deductions reduced by applicant applying Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) Div 243 — Div 243 applies where “limited recourse debt” used to finance expenditure, debt not paid in full at time of discharge and debtor can deduct amount as capital allowance for year in which discharge occurs, or has done so for earlier year: s 243-15 — “Limited recourse debt” is debt where creditor’s rights of recovery against debtor limited to property purchased using borrowed funds or where creditors rights are capable of being so limited: s 243-20 — Whether loans from BHP Finance to BHP Direct were “limited recourse debts” by virtue of being capable of being so limited — Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) s 243-20(2).

Appealed from FCA FC: [2010] FCAFC 25; (2010) 182 FCR 526.

Trade and Commerce

****Insight Vacations Pty Ltd t/as Insight Vacations v Young S159/2010: [2010] HCATrans 305.

Date heard: 12 November 2010 — Special leave granted.

Catchwords:

Trade and commerce — Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (“TPA”) and related legislation — Consumer protection — Conditions and warranties in consumer transactions — Warranties — Whether s 74(2A) of TPA applies to State law authorising contractual provision limiting or precluding liability for breach of implied warranty of due care and skill in s 74(1) of TPA — Whether s 74(2A) of TPA only applies to State laws which limit or preclude liability for breach of implied warranty in s 74(1) of TPA by their own terms — Whether s 74(2A) of TPA picks up and applies s 5N(1) of Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (“CLA”) — Whether exclusion clause authorised by s 5N of CLA is contract term purporting to exclude, restrict or modify application of s 74(1) of TPA, within meaning of s 68 of TPA — Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 68 and 74(2A) — Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5N.

Appealed from NSW SC (CA): [2010] NSWCA 137.

5: CASES NOT PROCEEDING OR VACATED

There are no cases in the High Court of Australia that are not proceeding or have been vacated since High Court Bulletin 10 [2010] HCAB 10.

6: SPECIAL LEAVE REFUSED

Canberra: 11 November 2010

(Publication of reasons)

Civil

Barmettler & Anor v State of Queensland
B56/2010: [2010] HCASL 260.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2010] QCA 198


Remely v Acting Registrar A Sanna & Ors
B58/2010: [2010] HCASL 261.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2010] QCA 214


Conde v Hunter & Anor
B59/2010: [2010] HCASL 262.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 920.


Haque v Victorian Police
M110/2010: [2010] HCASL 263.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) [2010] VSCA 219


Haque v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
P34/2010: [2010] HCASL 264.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 772.


SZLUW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S187/2010: [2010] HCASL 265.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 804.


SZMZL & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor S188/2010: [2010] HCASL 266.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 843.


SZOCB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S189/2010: [2010] HCASL 267.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 825.


SZODZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S192/2010: [2010] HCASL 268.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 842.


SZOBG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S193/2010: [2010] HCASL 269.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 832.


Alam & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S196/2010: [2010] HCASL 270.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA (no media neutral citation).


SZOCI & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S199/2010: [2010] HCASL 271.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 867.


SZODT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S200/2010: [2010] HCASL 272.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 855.


Wang & Anor v State of New South Wales
S201/2010: [2010] HCASL 273.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from NSW SC (CA): [2010] NSWCA 209


SZODQ & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S202/2010: [2010] HCASL 274.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 870.


SZOGE & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S203/2010: [2010] HCASL 275.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 871.


SZMBY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S204/2010: [2010] HCASL 276.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 830.


SZOEB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S206/2010: [2010] HCASL 277.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from FCA: [2010] FCA 857.


SZNTQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S207/2010: [2010] HCASL 278.

Application dismissed.
Appealed from Federal Court of Australia [2010] FCA 858.

Canberra: 12 November 2010

Civil

Aurukun Shire Council v CEO, Liquor Gaming & Racing in Dept of Treasury; Kowanyama Aboriginal Shire Council v Chief Executive, Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing
B11/2010 and B12/2010: [2010] HCATrans 293.

Special leave refused with costs.
Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2010] QCA 37.


Barkworth Olives Management Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
B20/2010: [2010] HCATrans 299.

Special leave refused with costs.
Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2010] QCA 80.


Lewani Springs Resort Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Anor
B37/2010: [2010] HCATrans 295.

Special leave refused with costs.
Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2010] QCA 145.


Whitsunday Regional Council (previously Council of The Shire of Bowen) v Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors
B45/2010:  [2010] HCATrans 294 .

Special leave refused with costs.
Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2010] QCA 170.


Supangat v Byrnes
B48/2010: [2010] HCATrans 302.

Special leave refused with costs.
Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2010] QCA 176.


Meshlawn Pty Ltd & Anor v State of Queensland & Anor
B50/2010: [2010] HCATrans 300.

Special leave refused with costs.
Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2010] QCA 181.

Criminal

Baldwin v The Queen
B50/2009: [2010] HCATrans 298.

Special leave refused.
Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2009] QCA 337.


Broad v The Queen
B18/2010: [2010] HCATrans 296.

Special leave refused.
Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2010] QCA 53.


WAI v The Queen
B19/2010: [2010] HCATrans 297.

Special leave refused.
Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2010] QCA 67.


Hettrick v The Queen
B31/2010: [2010] HCATrans 301.

Special leave refused.
Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2009] QCA 259.

Sydney: 12 November 2010

Civil

Pselletes v Randwick City Council
S266/2009: [2010] HCATrans 308.

Special leave refused with costs.
Appealed from NSW SC (CA): [2009] NSWCA 262.


Television Food Network GP v Food Channel Network Pty Ltd
B33/2010: [2010] HCATrans 303.

Special leave refused with costs.
Appealed from FCA FC:[2010] FCAFC 38.


Sgro v Jainran Pty. Limited & Ors
S107/2010: [2010] HCATrans 307.

Special leave refused with costs.
Appealed from NSW SC (CA): [2010] NSWCA 37.


K & K Real Estate Pty Ltd v Adellos Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) and Anor
S258/2010: [2010] HCATrans 309.

Special leave refused with costs.
Appealed from NSW SC (CA): [2010] NSWCA 302.

Criminal

MB v The Queen
S256/2009: [2010] HCATrans 306.

Special leave refused.
Appealed from NSW SC (CCA): [2009] NSWCCA 200.