Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: WILLMOT V THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Date: 07 May 2024
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 37m
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.
Kramer & Anor v. Stone
Case No.
S53/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
10/11/2023 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Ward P; Leeming JA; Kirk JA)
Catchwords
Equity – Proprietary estoppel – Estoppel by encouragement – Knowledge of detriment – Where in 1975, respondent commenced share-farming 100-acre property situated on Colo River ("Property") under oral contract described as share-farming agreement – Where shortly after death of then-joint proprietor, his wife ("deceased") told respondent about agreement to pass Property and sum of money to respondent upon deceased's death – Where under her final will, deceased left Property to one of couple's two daughters, first appellant – Where primary judge held respondent established entitlement to equitable relief on basis of proprietary estoppel and characterised case as based upon estoppel by encouragement –Where primary judge found respondent acted to his detriment on faith of deceased's assurance by continuing share farming operation on Property for about 23 years in belief that he would inherit Property under deceased’s will – Where primary judge found in absence of such belief, respondent would have terminated share-farming agreement and pursued more remunerative occupation – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred concluding in cases of proprietary estoppel by encouragement elements of encouragement coupled with reasonable and detrimental reliance are sufficient, without more, to establish unconscionable conduct.
Documents
11/04/2024 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
24/04/2024 Notice of appeal
30/05/2024 Written submissions (Appellants)
30/05/2024 Chronology (Appellants)
27/06/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
18/07/2024 Reply
11/09/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Hobart)
11/09/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
11/09/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
11/12/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Pafburn Pty Limited & Anor v. The Owners - Strata Plan No 84674
Case No.
S54/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
13/12/2023 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Ward P; Adamson JA; Basten AJA)
Catchwords
Tort – Statutory duty of care for construction work – Proportionate liability – Apportionable claims – Where second appellant retained first appellant to design and construct building – Where respondent sued appellants for damages under Pt 4 of Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) ("DBPA") alleging defective works in common property – Where appellants pleaded proportionate liability defences under Pt 4 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("CLA") – Where respondent sought to strike out paragraphs of appellants' pleadings on basis s 5Q CLA operates so claims under Pt 4 DBPA are not apportionable – Where primary judge held proportionate liability defence could be pleaded – Where Court of Appeal held proportionate liability cannot apply as defence to respondent’s claim under Pt 4 DBPA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding s 5Q of CLA enlivened by cause of action brought under Pt 4 of DBPA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding s 39 of DBPA implicitly excludes application of Pt 4 of CLA to claims under Pt 4 of DBPA – Whether, alternatively, if s 5Q of CLA is enlivened by cause of action under Pt 4 of DBPA, Court of Appeal erred in concluding no apportionment is to occur.
Documents
11/04/2024 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
24/04/2024 Notice of appeal
05/06/2024 Amended written submissions (Appellants)
05/06/2024 Amended chronology (Appellants)
01/07/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
18/07/2024 Reply
15/10/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
15/10/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
15/10/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
11/12/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Fuller & Anor v. Lawrence
Case No.
B24/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/12/2023 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Bowskill CJ; Morrison and Bond JJA)
Catchwords
Administrative law – Judicial review – Reviewable decisions and conduct – Meaning of "decision... made under an enactment" – Where respondent is prisoner released under supervision order pursuant to Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – Where Corrective Services Officer gave direction to respondent approving phone contact with particular person including video calls, but denying respondent’s request to have in-person contact with that person – Where respondent requested reasons for direction in so far as it denied in-person contact – Where appellants' response was respondent not entitled to statement of reasons under Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) ("JRA") – Where primary judge found direction was decision under enactment within meaning of JRA and therefore respondent entitled to statement of reasons under s 33 of JRA – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding direction "itself" affects rights in sense necessary to qualify as "decision … made under an enactment" within meaning of JRA.
Documents
11/04/2024 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
19/04/2024 Notice of appeal
30/05/2024 Written submissions (Appellants)
30/05/2024 Chronology (Appellants)
27/06/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
18/07/2024 Reply
10/09/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Hobart)
09/09/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
10/09/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
04/12/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Birketu Pty Ltd ACN 003 831 392 & Anor v. Atanaskovic & Ors
Case No.
S52/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/12/2023 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Ward P; Kirk JA; Simpson AJA)
Catchwords
Costs – General rule that self-represented litigants cannot recover costs for own time – Whether partners of unincorporated law firm entitled to recover costs for work done by employed solicitors of that firm in proceedings brought by or against partners of firm – Whether Court of Appeal erred finding first and second respondents able to recover costs of employed solicitors in proceedings in which they were self-represented solicitor litigants by their unincorporated law firm – Whether Court of Appeal erred finding s 98(1) of Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ("CPA") and definition of costs in s 3(1) authorised recovery of costs – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding employed solicitor rule operated to authorise recovery of costs – Whether Court of Appeal erred in declining to follow United Petroleum v Herbert Smith Freehills [2020] VSCA 15 in applying CPA to recovery of costs by employed solicitors of self-represented solicitor litigants.
Documents*
11/04/2024 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
23/04/2024 Notice of appeal
24/05/2024 Written submissions (Appellants)
24/05/2024 Chronology (Appellants)
24/06/2024 Written submissions (First and Second Respondents)
11/07/2024 Reply
17/10/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
17/10/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
17/10/2024 Outline of oral argument (First and Second Respondents)
05/02/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)