Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Kain v R&B Investments; Ernst & Young v R&B Investments; Shand v R&B Investments [2025] HCATrans 13
Date: 04 March 2025
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 35m
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.
Hunt Leather Pty Ltd & Anor v. Transport for NSW
Hunt Leather Pty Ltd & Ors v. Transport for NSW
Case No.
Case nos S20 & S21/2025
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/09/2024 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bell CJ, Leeming & Mitchelmore JJA)
Catchwords
TORTS – nuisance – private nuisance – appellants claimed their properties were affected by construction of Sydney Light Rail – whether interference with enjoyment of appellants’ property substantial and unreasonable – whether failure by appellants to establish a failure to take reasonable care determinative – whether respondent bore onus of establishing that it took reasonable care – whether respondent failed to take reasonable care – significance to cause of action in nuisance of taking reasonable care – whether use of road for construction purposes exceptional – whether interference with reasonable enjoyment inevitable – whether delay in construction attributable to discovery of unknown utilities – whether damages should include a “recovery period” – whether s 43A of Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) applicable – damages – pure economic loss – funded litigation – funding agreement included commission to funder – whether commission recoverable as component of damages
Documents*
06/02/2025 Determination
20/02/2025 Notices of appeal
13/03/2025 Written submissions (Appellants)
13/03/2025 Chronology (Appellants)
03/04/2025 Written submissions (Respondent)
17/04/2025 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Namoa v. The Queen
Case No.
S188/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
06/04/2020 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Payne JA, Johnson and Davies JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Conspiracy between married persons – Relationship between common law and Schedule (“Criminal Code”) to Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – Where applicant tried jointly with another on one count of conspiring to do acts in preparation for terrorist act or acts, contrary to ss 11.5 and 101.6 of Criminal Code – Where prior to trial, trial judge rejected application for permanent stay on basis that applicant and co-accused were married – Where applicant and co-accused convicted – Where NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (“CCA”) dismissed appeal against conviction – Whether immediately prior to enactment of Criminal Code, it was part of common law of Australia that married persons could not commit criminal conspiracy – If so, whether that principle remains part of common law – Whether CCA entitled to depart from Privy Council decisions on principles of common law which preceded passage of Australia Acts in 1986 – Whether Criminal Code expressly or impliedly ousts common law rule as to conspiracy between married persons.
Documents
13/10/2020 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne v/connection Brisbane)
27/10/2020 Notice of appeal
01/12/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/12/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
12/01/2021 Written submissions (Respondent)
15/02/2021 Reply
11/03/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
11/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
14/04/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: THE KING V RYAN CHURCHILL (A PSEUDONYM)
Date: 14 February 2025
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 08m
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: DZY (A PSEUDONYM) V TRUSTEES OF THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS
Date: 13 February 2025
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1h 12m
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.