Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: POTTS V NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED (ABN 12004044937)
Date: 10 October 2023
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 07m
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.
Morgan & Ors v. McMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor
Case No.
Case no S119/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/02/2023 Federal Court of Australia (Yates, Beach and Markovic JJ)
Catchwords
Bankruptcy – Pooling order – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 579E – Meaning of “particular property” – Where first applicant is liquidator of second and third applicants – Where first applicant sought order before primary judge that, inter alia, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”) reinstate registration of third applicant, and Court make pooling order pursuant to s 579E of Corporations Act in respect of second and third applicants – Where primary judge made orders that ASIC reinstate registration of third applicant, and that second and third applicants be pooled group for purpose of s 579E of Corporations Act – Where first respondent appealed to Full Court on question of whether pooling order should be set aside – Where Full Court found precondition in s 570E(1)(b)(iv) of Corporations Act not satisfied – Whether Full Court majority erred in finding precondition in s 579E(1)(b)(iv) of Corporations Act not satisfied in circumstances where second and third applicants jointly and severally owned “particular property”, being chose in action, at time of making pooling order, being immediately following reinstatement of third applicant – Whether Full Court majority impermissibly departed from clear and unambiguous language of s 601AH(5) of Corporations Act.
Documents
15/09/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
29/09/2023 Notice of appeal
03/11/2023 Written submissions (Appellants)
03/11/2023 Chronology (Appellants)
01/12/2023 Written submissions (First Respondent)
22/12/2023 Reply
12/06/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/06/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
12/06/2024 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
11/09/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Miller v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor
Case No.
Case no S120/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/11/2022 Federal Court of Australia (Thawley, Halley & O’Sullivan JJ)
Catchwords
Immigration – Visas – Cancellation – Invalid applications – Application for review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal”) – Requirements under s 29(1) of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) for application for review of migration decision – Where applicant filed document in Tribunal seeking review of delegate’s decision not to revoke cancellation of his visa under s 501CA(4) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where in courts below, Minister accepted application complied with all requirements in s 29(1) of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act other than requirement in s 29(1)(c) to “contain a statement of reasons for the application” – Where at directions hearing on 1 April 2021, Tribunal requested applicant provide by 9 April 2021 email stating reasons for application – Where on that day, applicant’s migration agent emailed reasons – Where primary judge and Full Court held that statement required by s 29(1)(c) essential to validity of application and thus Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Where Full Court held that 9 April 2021 email stating reasons sent outside nine-day period specified by s 500(6B) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) “perfected” application out of time – Whether Full Court erred in concluding second respondent did not have jurisdiction to determine applicant’s application filed on 24 March 2021.
Documents
15/09/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video connection)
29/09/2023 Notice of appeal
03/11/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
03/11/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
01/12/2023 Written submissions (First Respondent)
19/12/2023 Reply
14/02/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
14/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
17/04/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Productivity Partners Pty Ltd (trading as Captain Cook College) ACN 085 570 547 & Anor v. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission & Anor
Case No.
S118/2023
Related Case
S116/2023 - Wills v. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission & Ors
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
06/04/2023 Federal Court of Australia (Wigney, O'Bryan & Downes JJ)
Catchwords
Trade Practices – Consumer law – Unconscionable conduct – Statutory unconscionability under s 21 of Australian Consumer Law (“ACL”) – Where first applicant carried on business providing vocational education and training courses to students – Where second applicant is parent company of first applicant – Where students enrolled in courses by first applicant were eligible for funding support under Commonwealth government scheme (VET-FEE HELP) – Where first applicant engaged agents to market to or recruit potential students – Where changes made to VET-FEE HELP scheme by Commonwealth to protect students from risk of misconduct by agents and providers – Where prior to 7 September 2015, first applicant had several controls in enrolment system which it implemented to ameliorate risk of unethical or careless conduct of agents with respect to enrolments –Where first applicant removed those controls after suffering declining enrolments – Where primary judge and Full Court held first applicant engaged in unconscionable conduct in contravention of s 21 of ACL – Whether Full Court ought to have held that primary judge erred in holding first applicant engaged in unconscionable conduct within meaning of s 21 of ACL, which claim was framed, and considered by trial judge, without reference to factors prescribed by s 22 of ACL – Whether Full Court erred in holding first applicant’s conduct of removing two system controls and operating enrolment system without those controls, in absence of intention that risks ameliorated by those controls eventuate, constituted unconscionable conduct in contravention of s 21 – Whether Full Court erred in holding second applicant knowingly concerned or party to first applicant’s contravention of s 21.
Documents
14/09/2023 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
29/09/2023 Notice of appeal
02/11/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/11/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
30/11/2023 Written submissions (First Respondent)
30/11/2023 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
21/12/2023 Reply
07/02/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
07/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
08/02/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/08/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Wills v. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission & Ors
Case No.
S116/2023
Related Case
S118/2023 - Productivity Partners Pty Ltd (trading as Captain Cook College) & Anor v. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission & Anor
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
06/04/2023 Federal Court of Australia (Wigney, O'Bryan & Downes JJ)
[2023] FCAFC 54
Catchwords
Trade Practices – Consumer law – Unconscionable conduct – Statutory unconscionability under s 21 of Australian Consumer Law ("ACL") – Knowing concern in unconscionable conduct – Accessorial liability – Where second respondent carried on business providing vocational education and training courses to students – Where third respondent parent company of second respondent – Where applicant was Chief Operating Officer of third respondent, and for period Chief Executive Officer of second respondent – Where students enrolled in courses by second respondent were eligible for funding support under Commonwealth government scheme (VET-FEE HELP) – Where second respondent engaged agents to market to or recruit potential students – Where changes made to VET-FEE HELP scheme by Commonwealth to protect students from risk of misconduct by agents and providers – Where prior to 7 September 2015, second respondent had several controls in enrolment system which it implemented to ameliorate risk of unethical or careless conduct of agents with respect to enrolments – Where second respondent removed those controls after suffering declining enrolments – Where primary judge and Full Court held second respondent engaged in unconscionable conduct in contravention of s 21 of ACL – Where primary judge held applicant was knowingly concerned in contravention of prohibition second respondent's unconscionable conduct – Where Full Court majority allowed one of applicant's grounds of appeal in part, that applicant did not know all of matters essential to contravention until he was acting CEO – Whether Full Court majority erred in finding that applicant had requisite knowledge to be liable as accessory to contravention of s 21, notwithstanding applicant did not have knowledge that conduct involved taking advantage of consumers or was otherwise against conscience – Whether Full Court majority erred in finding that applicant satisfied participation element for accessorial liability by (i) applicant's conduct before he had knowledge of essential matters which make up contravention; together with (ii) applicant's continued holding of position of authority, but no identified positive acts after applicant had requisite knowledge.
Documents
14/09/2023 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
28/09/2023 Notice of appeal
02/11/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
02/11/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
30/11/2023 Written submissions (First Respondent)
30/11/2023 Written submissions (Second and Third Respondents)
21/12/2023 Reply
07/02/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-Visual Recording)
07/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
08/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
07/02/2024 Outline of oral argument (Second and Third Respondents)
08/02/2024 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-Visual Recording)
14/08/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)