Live Stream of Special Leave to Appeal Applications
Live streaming of Special Leave to Appeal Applications will commence in August 2023.
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.
You accept the terms of use (above) by accessing this live stream.
Potts & Anor v. DSHE Holdings Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) & Ors
Potts v. National Australia Bank Limited
Case No.
Case nos S47 and S48/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
26/08/2022 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Leeming, Kirk JJA and Basten AJA)
Catchwords
Corporations law – Compensation orders – Breach of directors’ duties – Damage – Where directors found to have breached s 180 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by voting in favour of payment of dividends – Where s 254T sets out circumstances in which dividend may be paid – Where s 1317H provides Court may order person to compensate corporation if person contravened corporation civil penalty provision and "damage resulted from contravention" – Whether payment by Dick Smith Holdings Ltd ("DSH") of dividend constitutes damage which resulted from contravention of s 180 within meaning of s 1317H – Whether, when assessing compensation under s 1317H for damage company suffered by contravention of s 180(1), Court must have regard to normative considerations in addition to considering "but for" causation – Whether, when assessing compensation under s 1317H for damage which company has suffered by contravention of s 180(1), dividend paid to shareholders is "damage" suffered by company within meaning of s 1317H where no breach of s 254T.
Corporations law – Proportionate liability – Where appellant Chief Financial Officer and director of DSH – Where National Australia Bank Ltd ("NAB") became DSH's financier after entering into Syndicated Facility Agreement ("SFA") – Where SFA contained representation as to accuracy of information provided by DSH to NAB – Where NAB relied on three causes of action for misleading conduct and appellant raised proportionate liability defences under ss 87CB of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), 1041L of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and 12GP of Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), claiming DSH concurrent wrongdoer – Whether DSH concurrent wrongdoer – Whether, when determining if corporation, having regard to matters within its knowledge, engaged in misleading conduct by making representations in document authorised by board, issue should be determined solely by reference to matters within knowledge of board, rather than by reference to any knowledge attributable to corporation applying orthodox principles – Whether, when determining if corporation engaged in misleading conduct by making representations in document authorised by board, appropriate to exclude from consideration matters known to a particular member of board against whom allegations of misleading conduct been made, but not established.
Documents*
21/04/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
05/05/2023 Notice of appeal
09/06/2023 Written submissions (Appellants in S47/2023)
09/06/2023 Chronology (Appellants in S47/2023)
09/06/2023 Written submissions (Appellant in S48/2023)
09/06/2023 Chronology (Appellant in S48/2023)
07/07/2023 Written submissions (First Respondent in S47/2023)
07/07/2023 Written submissions (Respondent in S48/2023)
28/07/2023 Reply (Appellants in S47/2023)
27/07/2023 Reply (Appellant in S48/2023)
10/10/2023 Pronouncement of orders S47/2023 (Full Court, Canberra)
10/10/2023 Hearing S48/2023 (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/10/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant in S48/2023)
10/10/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent in S48/2023)
06/12/2023 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Hurt v. The King
Case No.
Case no C7 and C8/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/09/2022 Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Loukas-Karlsson, Kennett & Rangiah JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentencing – Mandatory minimum sentences – Sentencing discretion – Where s 16AAB of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) imposes minimum sentences for certain offences – Whether minimum sentence to be regarded as base of range of appropriate sentence or minimum permissible sentence – Proper approach to minimum sentences – Whether proper approach involves sentencing judge having regard to minimum from outset as prescribing bottom of range of appropriate sentence, consistent with Bahar v The Queen (2011) 45 WAR 100 – Whether proper approach involves sentencing judge exercising sentencing discretion in usual way and only if proposed sentence falls below minimum penalty that minimum penalty has effect, consistent with approach in R v Pot, Wetangky and Lande (Supreme Court (NT), 18 January 2011, unrep).
Documents*
21/04/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
04/05/2023 Notice of appeal
08/06/2023 Written submissions (Appellant - joint for both matters)
08/06/2023 Chronology (Appellant - joint for both matters)
22/06/2023 Written submissions (North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, seeking leave to be heard as amicus curiae)
07/07/2023 Written submissions (Respondent - joint for both matters)
19/07/2023 Reply
09/11/2023 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/11/2023 Outline of oral argument (Appellant - joint for both matters)
09/11/2023 Outline of oral argument (Respondent - joint for both matters)
13/03/2024 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Delzotto v. The King
Case No.
Case no S44/2023
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
06/06/2022 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Beech-Jones CJ, RA Hulme & Adamson JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sentencing – Mandatory minimum sentences – Sentencing discretion – Where s 16AAB of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) imposes minimum sentences for certain offences – Whether minimum sentence to be regarded as base of range of appropriate sentence or minimum permissible sentence – Proper approach to minimum sentences – Whether proper approach involves sentencing judge having regard to minimum from outset as prescribing bottom of range of appropriate sentence, consistent with Bahar v The Queen (2011) 45 WAR 100 – Whether proper approach involves sentencing judge exercising sentencing discretion in usual way and only if proposed sentence falls below minimum penalty that minimum penalty has effect, consistent with approach in R v Pot, Wetangky and Lande (Supreme Court (NT), 18 January 2011, unrep).
Documents*
21/04/2023 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
04/05/2023 Notice of appeal
09/06/2023 Written submissions (Appellant)
09/06/2023 Chronology (Appellant)
07/07/2023 Written submissions (Respondent)
28/07/2023 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: BDO V THE QUEEN
Date: 20 April 2023
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 14m
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.