Tesseract International Pty Ltd v. Pascale Construction Pty Ltd
Case No.
Case no A9/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
21/10/2022 Supreme Court of South Australia (Livesey P, Doyle & Bleby JJA)
Catchwords
Arbitration – Arbitral proceedings – Powers and duties of arbitrator – Where respondent subcontracted with applicant – Where applicant agreed to provide engineering consultancy services to respondent in relation to design and construction of warehouse – Where, under contract, if dispute between applicant and respondent arose, dispute could be submitted to arbitration – Where dispute arose where respondent alleged applicant breached various terms of contract, breached duty of care in negligence and involved in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 of Australian Consumer Law – Where applicant denied allegations, but pleaded in alternative that any damages payable should be reduced by reason of proportionate liability provisions under Part 3 of Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 (SA) and Part VIA of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (collectively "proportionate liability regimes") – Whether proportionate liability regimes amenable to arbitration – Whether s 28 of Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (SA) empowers arbitrator to apply proportionate liability regimes, or whether terms of legislation preclude arbitrator from doing so – Whether implied power conferred on arbitrator to determine parties' dispute empowers arbitrator to apply proportionate liability regimes, or whether terms of legislation preclude arbitrator from doing so.
Documents*
19/05//2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video-connection)
31/05/2023 Notice of appeal
07/07/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
07/07/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
04/08/2023 Written submissions (Respondent)
18/08/2023 Written submissions (Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA), seeking leave to intervene)
25/08/2023 Reply
15/11/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
15/11/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
15/11/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
07/08/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Rehmat & Mehar Pty Ltd & Anor v. Hortle
Case No.
Case no M16/2023
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Powers of Commonwealth Parliament – States – Inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws – Where first plaintiff operated restaurant in Victoria – Where Victorian Parliament passed Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009 (Vic) ("Referral Act"), referring matters to Commonwealth Parliament for purposes of s 51(xxxvii) of Constitution – Where Commonwealth Parliament passed Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – Where matters referred under Referral Act included administration of, inspection of, and enforcement of terms and conditions of employment for national system employers, covered under Fair Work Act – Where Restaurant Industry Award made under Fair Work Act and first plaintiff's employees subject to Award – Where Victorian Parliament passed Wage Theft Act 2020 (Vic) – Where defendant Commissioner of Wage Inspectorate Victoria, appointed under Wage Theft Act – Where defendant, following investigation, filed charges against first plaintiff alleging contravention of Wage Theft Act for non-payment of entitlements allegedly payable under Award – Whether Fair Work Act intended to be exhaustive statement of law applicable to national system employers – Whether there exists alteration, impairment, detraction and/or collision between Wage Theft Act and Fair Work Act – Whether Wage Theft Act invalid by operation of s 109 of Constitution to extent of inconsistency.
Documents
23/02/2023 Writ of Summons
24/02/2023 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiffs)
19/05/2023 Demurrer (Defendant)
22/05/2023 Order referring matter to the Full Court
07/07/2023 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
07/07/2023 Chronology (Plaintiffs)
18/08/2023 Written submissions (Defendant and the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria (intervening))
01/09/2023 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, intervening)
01/09/2023 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia, intervening)
01/09/2023 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory, intervening)
01/09/2023 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening)
25/09/2023 Reply
01/12/2023 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video-connection)
18/01/2024 Notice of Discontinuance
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: BROMLEY V THE KING
Date: 18 May 2023
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1h 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.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: BROMLEY V THE KING
Date: 17 May 2023
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 34m
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: McNAMARA V THE KING
Date: 16 May 2023
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 30m
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.