Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: NAAMAN V JAKEN PROPERTIES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ACN 123 423 432 & ORS
Date: 11 October 2024
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 47m
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
Terms of use
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Pearson v Commonwealth; JZQQ v MICMA; Tapiki v MICMA and related matters [2024] - second day
Date: 10 October 2024
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 28m
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
Terms of use
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.
Ravbar & Anor v. Commonwealth of Australia & Ors
Case No.
Case no S113/2024
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – invalidity – implied freedom of political communication – acquisition of property on just terms – where first and second plaintiffs office bearers of Construction and General Division (“C&G Division) of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union – where s 333A(1) of Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) (“FWRO Act”) provides C&G Division and each of its branches placed into administration from earliest time that both a legislative instrument made under s 333B(1) and appointment of administrator under s 323C in force – where s 323B(1) empowers Minister to determine scheme for administration of C&G Division and branches if satisfied in public interest – whether Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Act 2024 (Cth) (“Administration Act”) and provisions it inserted into Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) sufficiently connected to head of power in s 51 Constitution – whether impugned provisions infringe implied freedom of political communication – whether Fair Work (Registered Organisations) (CFMEU Construction and General Division Administration) Determination 2024 invalid as unsupported by s 323B FWRO Act as partially disapplied or otherwise read down as to not infringe implied freedom of political communication – whether s 323B FWRO Act and Administration Act purport to confer judicial power of Commonwealth on Minister and thereby inconsistent with Ch III of Constitution – whether ss 323K(1) and 323M FWRO Act effect acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms contrary to s 51(xxxi) of Constitution.
Documents*
03/09/2024 Writ of summons
10/09/2024 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne by remote connection)
18/10/2024 Special Case
21/10/2024 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
21/10/2024 Chronology (Plaintiffs)
25/10/2024 Written submissions (Michael Hiscox, seeking leave to intervene)
18/11/2024 Written submissions (First and Second Defendants)
25/11/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for South Australia, intervening)
25/11/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General of Queensland, intervening)
26/11/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General forTasmania, intervening)
02/12/2024 Reply
10/12/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiffs)
10/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (First and Second Defendants)
11/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for South Australia, intervening)
11/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of Queensland, intervening)
11/12/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for Tasmania, intervening)
11/12/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
Evans & Anor v. Air Canada ABN 29094769561
Case No.
Case no S138/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
21/06/2024 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Leeming & Payne JJA, Griffiths AJA)
Catchwords
Aviation law – international carriage of passengers by air – Unification of Certain Rules of International Carriage by Air 1999 (”Montreal Convention”) – where appellants sought damages in Supreme Court of New South Wales for injuries allegedly suffered from turbulence on Air Canada flight from Vancouver to Australia under art 17 of Montreal Convention (incorporated into Australian law under s 9B Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) – where respondent pleaded it was not liable for damages exceeding “113,100 Special Drawing Rights” in accordance with art 21 of Montreal Convention – where appellants relied on rule 105(C)(1)(a) of Air Canada’s International Tariff General Rules which stipulated there were no financial limits on compensatory damages recoverable in respect of bodily injuries – where Court of Appeal found rule 105(C)(1)(a) did not have effect of waiving defence created by art 21 – whether Court of Appeal erred in construing arts 17, 21 and 25 of Montreal Convent ion by treating rule 105(C)(1)(a) as form of consumer notification rather than term of contract of carriage – whether Court of Appeal erred in holding stipulation in rule 105(C)(1)(a) did not preclude financial limit under art 21(2) in cases where damages would exceed a monetary or financial amount and carrier proves no fault – whether Court of Appeal erred in not holding operation of rule 105(C)(1)(a) constitutes a stipulation for purposes of art 25 and displaced application of art 21(2) of Montreal Convention.
Documents*
10/10/2024 Determination
23/10/2024 Notice of appeal
28/11/2024 Written submissions (Appellants)
28/11/2024 Chronology (Appellants)
21/01/2025 Written submissions (Respondent)
04/02/2025 Reply
12/03/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
12/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
12/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
KMD v. CEO (Department of Health NT) & Ors
Case No.
Case no D2/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/07/2024 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Blokland, Reeves & Burns JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – mental impairment – supervision orders – where appellant found not guilty by reason of mental impairment of eight offences and subject to custodial supervision order under s 43X(2) of Criminal Code (NT) – where such order required first respondent to submit to Court report on treatment or management of supervised person’s impairment and Court may conduct review to determine whether person may be released from custodial supervision order – where on completion of review s 43ZH(2) Criminal Code required Court to vary order to non-custodial supervision order unless satisfied on the evidence that safety of supervised person or public will be seriously at risk if person released on non-custodial supervision order – where primary judge made non-custodial supervision order – where majority of Court of Criminal Appeal found not reasonably open to primary judge to find safety of public not seriously at risk if appellant placed on non-custodial supervision order – proper standard of appellate review to be applied – whether majority in finding correctness standard rather than House v King standard applied – whether majority erred in ordering custodial supervision order be confirmed without providing appellant with further hearing or opportunity to adduce evidence relevant to risk based on time she spent in community following primary judge’s decision in circumstances where conduct of appeal gave rise to reasonable expectation that if CCA found error she would be afforded further hearing – whether majority erred in ordering custodial supervision order without any evidence relevant to risk arising from appellant’s time in community – whether majority erred in holding primary judge’s periodic review miscarried because appellant refused to engage with one of persons who prepared report under s 43ZN(2)(a) of Criminal Code.
Documents
10/10/2024 Determination
24/10/2024 Notice of appeal
21/11/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
21/11/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
19/12/2024 Written submissions (First Respondent)
14/01/2025 Reply (not publicly available)
11/02/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Transcript and AV Recording will not be published)
11/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
27/02/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)