AB (a pseudonym) v. CD (a pseudonym) & Ors
EF (a pseudonym) v. CD (a pseudonym) & Ors
Case Nos.
M73/2018; M74/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
21/11/2017 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Ferguson CJ, Osborn JA, McLeish JA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Prosecution's duty of disclosure – Public interest immunity – Where legal counsel for several accused ("EF") was enlisted as police informer – Where EF provided information to police that had potential to undermine each accused's defences to criminal charges – Where each accused convicted of criminal offences – Where first respondent proposed to disclose to each convicted person information about EF's conduct – Whether information subject to public interest immunity – Whether first respondent permitted to make proposed disclosures.
Practice and procedure – High Court – Special leave to appeal – Whether special leave to appeal ought to be revoked.
Words and phrases – "adequately protect", "disclosure", "police informer", "integrity of the criminal justice system", "public interest immunity", "witness protection".
Witness Protection Act 1991 (Vic) – s 3B(2)(b).
Documents
05/11/2018 Judgment (Full Court, published 3 December 2018)
29/01/2019 Order
14/02/2019 Order
27/02/2019 Judgment (Single Justice)
28/02/2019 Order (Full Court)
28/02/2019 Order (Single Justice)
Masson v. Parsons & Ors
Case No.
S6/2019
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/06/2018 Family Court of Australia (Thackray, Murphy, & Aldridge JJ )
Catchwords
Family law – Parentage – Artificial insemination – Where appellant and first respondent conceived child using artificial insemination – Where appellant listed on child’s birth certificate as father – Where primary judge found appellant was “parent” for purpose of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) because provided genetic material for purpose of fathering child he expected to parent – Where Full Court allowed appeal on basis s 79 of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) picked up s 14(2) of Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) which operated to determine appellant not “parent” – Whether Full Court erred in concluding s 14(2) of Status of Children Act operated to determine appellant not “parent” for purpose of Family Law Act – Whether Full Court erred in concluding s 60H of Family Law Act exhaustively defines parents of child for purpose of Family Law Act.
Documents*
14/12/2018 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
08/01/2019 Notice of appeal
08/01/2019 Notice of constitutional matter (Appellant)
08/02/2019 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/02/2019 Chronology (Appellant)
22/02/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
01/03/2019 Written submissions (Third Respondent)
08/03/2019 Written submissions (First and Second Respondents)
19/03/2019 Amended Written submissions (First and Second Respondents)
22/03/2019 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
29/03/2019 Reply
29/03/2019 Amended written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
16/04/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
16/04/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
16/04/2019 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
16/04/2019 Outline of oral argument (Third Respondent)
16/04/2019 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for Victoria intervening)
16/04/2019 Outline of oral argument (First and Second Respondents)
17/04/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
19/06/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v. Pentelow & Anor
Case No.
S352/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
13/07/2018 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Beazley ACJ, Macfarlan JA, Meagher JA)
Catchwords
Costs – Chorley exception – London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley (1884) 13 QBD 872 – Where first respondent is barrister – Where first respondent commenced proceedings against appellant –Where Supreme Court entered judgment for first respondent and ordered appellant to pay first respondent’s costs – Where first respondent sought to recover costs for work performed by her in addition to costs and disbursements of solicitors and counsel – Where costs assessor and review panel disallowed costs for work performed by first respondent – Where Court of Appeal allowed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding first respondent entitled to recover costs for time spent in conduct of proceedings – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding Chorley exception applied in circumstances where first respondent had retained solicitors and counsel – Whether Court of Appeal erred in determining s 98 of Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) permitted application of Chorley exception.
Documents
14/12/2018 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
21/12/2018 Notice of appeal
17/01/2019 Submitting appearance (Second Respondent)
01/02/2019 Written submissions (Appellant)
01/02/2019 Chronology (Appellant)
04/03/2019 Written submissions (First Respondent)
25/03/2019 Reply
09/05/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/05/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
09/05/2019 Outline of oral argument (First respondent)
09/05/2019 Note on government and body corporate in-house lawyer cases (First respondent)
23/05/2019 First Respondent's Reply Note on Barristers' Conduct Rules and Solicitors' Conduct Rules
04/09/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Connective Services Pty Ltd & Anor v. Slea Pty Ltd & Ors
Case No.
M203/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
27/07/2018 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Ferguson CJ, Whelan & McLeish JJA)
Catchwords
Corporations – Financial assistance to acquire shares – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 260A – Where appellants’ constitutions require member who wishes to transfer shares of particular class to first offer shares to existing holders of that class (“pre-emptive rights provisions”) – Where appellants commenced proceeding alleging first and second respondents entered into agreement to avoid pre-emptive rights provisions – Where primary judge held proceeding not instituted in breach of s 260A – Where Court of Appeal allowed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding appellants’ conduct capable of amounting to financial assistance to acquire shares within meaning of s 260A – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding open to primary judge to characterise appellants’ conduct as net transfer of value to appellants’ shareholders – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding open to primary judge to characterise conduct as capable of materially prejudicing interests of appellants and/or shareholders or creditors – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding financial assistance directed to enabling appellants’ shareholders to acquire shares.
Documents
14/12/2018 Hearing (SLA, Sydney v/link Melbourne)
21/12/2018 Notice of appeal
01/02/2019 Written submissions (Appellants)
01/02/2019 Chronology (Appellants)
01/03/2019 Written submissions (First and Second Respondents)
22/03/2019 Reply (Appellants)
15/05/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
15/05/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
15/05/2019 Outline of oral argument (First and Second respondents)
09/10/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Mann & Anor v. Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd
Case No.
M197/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
12/09/2018 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Kyrou, McLeish and Hargrave JJA)
Catchwords
Contracts – Termination – Repudiation – Where appellants and respondent entered into building contract – Where appellants purported to terminate on basis respondent repudiated – Where respondent then purported to terminate on basis appellants’ conduct constituted repudiation – Where Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal upheld claim by respondent for quantum meruit in amount exceeding contract price – Where Supreme Court and Court of Appeal dismissed appeals – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding respondent entitled to sue on quantum meruit for works carried out – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding contract price did not operate as ceiling on amount claimable – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding respondent able to recover for variations to works because s 38 of Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) did not apply to quantum meruit claim.
Documents
14/12/2018 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
19/12/2018 Notice of appeal
01/02/2019 Written submissions (Appellants)
01/02/2019 Chronology (Appellants)
01/03/2019 Written submissions (Respondent)
22/03/2019 Reply (Appellants)
14/05/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/05/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
14/05/2019 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
09/10/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)