Bird v. DP (A Pseudonym)
Case No.
Case no M82/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
03/04/2023 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Beach, Niall & Kaye JJA)
Catchwords
Torts – Personal Injury – Sexual assault – Vicarious liability – Where trial concerned allegations of sexual assaults against respondent by Catholic Priest in 1971, when respondent was five years of age – Where respondent sued Diocese of Ballarat through current Bishop, who was nominated defendant – Where respondent’s negligence case failed, but appellant, representing Diocese, found to be vicariously liable for Priest’s sexual assaults – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that appellant could be vicariously liable for tortfeasor’s wrong where express finding that tortfeasor not in employment relationship with appellant and was no finding that tortious conduct occurred as part of any agency relationship between tortfeasor and appellant – Where in circumstances Court finds relationship between appellant and tortfeasor gives rise to relationship of vicarious liability, whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding, based on general and non-specific evidence accepted, that conduct of tortfeasor was conduct for which appellant ought be liable as having provided both opportunity and occasion for its occurrence.
Documents*
20/10/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
03/11/2023 Notice of appeal
15/12/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
15/12/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
09/02/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/02/2024 Reply
14/03/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/03/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
14/03/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
13/11/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Obian v. The King
Case No.
Case no M77/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/02/2023 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Priest, Niall & Macaulay JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Reopening of prosecution case – Substantial miscarriage of justice – Proper test for re-opening under s 233(2) Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) – Where appellant charged with three counts of trafficking in not less than commercial quantity of 1,4-butanediol (“1,4-BD”), which is drug of dependence except when possessed or used “for a lawful industrial purpose and not for human consumption” – Where defence case was that appellant imported and used 1,4-BD in course of his cleaning business – Where prosecution case was appellant imported and possessed 1,4-BD for purposes of sale for human consumption – Where after close of prosecution case, appellant gave evidence, which included admitting hiring HiAce van but did so on behalf of another person – Where part-way through appellant’s cross-examination, prosecution granted leave to re-open its case to call evidence from surveillance operatives to rebut aspects of appellant’s evidence about his hiring of van – Where majority of Court of Appeal refused appellant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction – Whether trial judge erred in permitting prosecution to reopen prosecution case under s 233(2) of Criminal Procedure Act and that substantial miscarriage of justice occurred as result.
Documents*
13/10/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
27/10/2023 Notice of appeal
01/12/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/12/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
12/01/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
02/02/2024 Reply
15/03/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
15/03/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
15/03/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
08/05/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Mallonland Pty Ltd & Anor v. Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd
Case No.
Case no B60/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/02/2023 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Morrison & Bond JJA, Williams J)
Catchwords
Torts – Negligence – Pure economic loss – Duty of care – Where appellants and other group members commercial sorghum growers who between 2010 and 2014 conducted business of planting and commercial cultivation and sale of sorghum – Where they purchased, via distributors and resellers, “MR43 Elite” sorghum seeds manufactured by respondent, which were contaminated – Where MR43 sold in bags with “Conditions of Sale and Use” printed, including generic disclaimer – Where trial judge and Court of Appeal found that respondent did not owe duty of care to appellants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to find respondent owed duty of care to appellants as end users of respondent’s product, to take reasonable care to avoid risk that such end users who used product as intended would sustain economic losses by reason of hidden defects in those goods – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that presence of disclaimer of liability on product packaging negated any assumption of responsibility by respondent so as to preclude duty of care on part of manufacturer arising, and thereby overwhelming consideration of all other salient features – Whether Court of Appeal erred by proceeding on basis that potential for farmers to avail themselves of contractual and statutory protection in dealings with distributors, and absence of statutory protection of farmers as consumers in Commonwealth consumer protection legislation, were matters which supported not expanding protection available to persons in position of applicants by recognising duty of care.
Documents*
13/10/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
26/10/2023 Notice of appeal
01/12/2023 Written submissions (Appellants)
01/12/2023 Chronology (Appellants)
09/01/2024 Written submissions (Respondent)
31/01/2024 Reply
06/03/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
06/03/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
06/03/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
07/08/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania v. Casimaty & Anor
Case No.
Case no H3/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
04/05/2023 Supreme Court of Tasmania (Pearce, Brett and Geason JJ)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Legislature – Privileges – Privilege of parliamentary debate and proceedings – Admissibility of report of parliamentary committee – Where proceedings concern road works at intersection – Where first respondent claims to hold interest in land at intersection – Where proposal by Department of State Growth to upgrade intersection considered and reported upon by Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works (“Committee”) in 2017 – Where second respondent engaged to construct new interchange – Where first respondent claims that works that second respondent was to perform not same as public works considered and reported upon by Committee – Where Attorney-General joined as second defendant and applied to, inter alia, strike out parts of statement of claim as offending parliamentary privilege – Where primary judge found cause of action could not proceed without court adjudicating upon 2017 report of Committee, which would contravene Article 9 of Bill of Rights – Where Full Court dismissed Attorney-General’s interlocutory application – Whether Full Court erred in construing s 15 and s 16 of Public Works Committee Act 1914 (Tas) (“PWC Act”) as creating public obligation which falls outside parliamentary process and hence ambit of parliamentary privilege – Whether it would infringe parliamentary privilege for court to determine whether road works complied with s 16(1) of PWC Act by adjudicating upon whether road works that second respondent were engaged to undertake were different from road works reported on by Committee.
Documents*
13/10/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
25/10/2023 Notice of appeal
01/12/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/12/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
18/12/2023 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, seeking leave to intervene)
10/01/2024 Written submissions (First Respondent)
07/02/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, seeking leave to intervene)
07/02/2024 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory, seeking leave to intervene)
19/02/2024 Reply
09/04/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
09/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
09/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, intervening)
09/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
09/04/2024 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory, intervening)
11/09/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Godolphin Australia Pty Ltd v. Chief Commissioner of State Revenue
Case No.
Case no S130/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
20/03/2023 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Kirk JA, Simpson & Griffiths AJJA)
Catchwords
Taxation – Land tax – Assessments – Exemption for land used for primary production – Where appellant runs thoroughbred stud operation – Where appellant also engages in associated agricultural activities such as raising cattle and growing lucerne – Where no dispute that appellant’s broad use or activities on land involved maintenance of horses and that use dominated over any other use of land – Where s10AA(1) of Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW) provides exemption for “land that is rural land from taxation if it is land used for primary production” – Where s10AA(3)(b) provides that “land used for primary production” means land the dominant purpose of which is for “the maintenance of animals (including birds), whether wild or domesticated, for the purpose of selling them or their natural increase or bodily produce” – Where Court of Appeal found appellant failed to establish exempt purpose was dominant including that non-exempt purpose was not merely incidental and subservient to exempt purpose – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that requirement of dominance in s 10AA(3)(b) applies to both use and purpose – Whether Court of Appeal should have concluded that where dominant use of land involves same physical activity for two or more complementary or overlapping purposes, one of which satisfies s 10AA(3)(b) and does not prevail over other purpose, it is unnecessary to demonstrate separately that exempt purpose is dominant purpose – Whether Court of Appeal should have concluded that appellant’s use of land for maintenance of animals was for purpose of selling animals, their progeny and bodily produce.
Documents*
13/10/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
25/10/2023 Notice of appeal
01/12/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/12/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
20/12/2023 Written submissions (Respondent)
31/01/2024 Reply
05/03/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
05/03/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
05/03/2024 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
05/06/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)