The Northern Territory of Australia v Sangare
Case No.
D11/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
3/08/2018 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Court of Appeal) (Southwood J, Kelly J, Blokland J)
Catchwords
Costs – Discretion to award costs – Impecuniosity – Where Department of Infrastructure offered employment to respondent – Where respondent sought support for skilled migration visa application from Minister for Infrastructure – Where Departmental officers provided briefing to Minister – Where respondent alleged briefing contained defamatory material fabricated by Department – Where respondent commenced proceedings seeking damages for publication of defamatory statements in briefing – Where Supreme Court dismissed claim – Where Court of Appeal dismissed respondent’s appeal – Where Court of Appeal declined to award appellant costs because respondent impecunious – Whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing to award costs because respondent unlikely to be able to pay any costs awarded against him.
Documents
05/12/2018 Determination (SLA, Canberra)
19/12/2018 Notice of appeal
21/12/2018 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney v/link Darwin)
23/01/2019 Written submissions (Appellant)
23/01/2019 Chronology (Appellant)
20/02/2019 Written submissions (Mr Crawley SC as Amicus curiae)
13/03/2019 Reply (Appellant)
11/04/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane)
11/04/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
11/04/2019 Outline of oral argument (Amicus Curiae)
14/08/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
L Lee v. C Lee & Ors
Hsu v. RACQ Insurance Limited
C Lee v. RACQ Insurance Limited
Case Nos.
B61/2018, B62/2018 & B63/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
1/06/2018 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Fraser JA, Philippides JA, McMurdo JA)
Catchwords
Insurance law – Motor vehicles – Personal injury – Where appellant injured in motor vehicle collision – Where appellant alleged injuries caused by negligence of father – Where appellant gave evidence father driving vehicle at time of collision – Where appellant’s blood located on driver airbag – Where pathologist gave evidence relating to possible source of blood – Where mechanical engineer gave evidence relating to seatbelts and airbag design – Where trial judge concluded appellant driving vehicle – Where Court of Appeal dismissed appeal – Whether Court of Appeal failed to give adequate reasons by failing to address aspects of mechanical engineer’s evidence and inferences arising from evidence – Whether Court of Appeal erred by failing to conclude trial judge misused advantage as trial judge – Whether finding appellant was driver contrary to compelling inferences from uncontroverted evidence.
Documents
16/11/2018 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Brisbane)
28/11/2018 Notice of appeal – L Lee B61/2018
28/11/2018 Notice of appeal – Hsu B62/2018
29/11/2018 Notice of appeal – C Lee B63/2018
10/01/2019 Written submissions - Hsu B62/2018 (Appellant)
10/01/2019 Chronology - Hsu B62/2018 (Appellant)
11/01/2019 Written submissions - L Lee B61/2018 (Appellant)
11/01/2019 Chronology - L Lee B61/2018 (Appellant)
11/01/2019 Written submissions - C Lee B63/2018 (Appellant)
11/01/2019 Chronology - C Lee B63/2018 (Appellant)
08/02/2019 Written submissions - L Lee B61/2018 (First Respondent)
08/02/2019 Written submissions - L Lee B61/2018 (Second Respondent)
08/02/2019 Written submissions - L Lee B61/2018 (Third Respondent)
08/02/2019 Written submissions - Hsu B62/2018 (Respondent)
08/02/2019 Written submissions - C Lee B63/2018 (Respondent)
22/02/2019 Reply - L Lee B61/2018 (Appellant)
22/02/2019 Reply - Hsu B62/2018 (Appellant)
22/02/2019 Reply - C Lee B63/2018 (Appellant)
10/04/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane)
10/04/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant - L Lee B61/2018)
10/04/2019 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent - L Lee B61/2018)
10/04/2019 Outline of oral argument (Second Respondent - L Lee B61/2018)
10/04/2019 Outline of oral argument (Third Respondent - L Lee B61/2018)
04/09/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
OKS v. The State of Western Australia
Case No.
P62/2018
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
11/04/2018 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) (Buss P, Beech & Pritchard JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Jury directions – Application of proviso – Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) s 30(4) – Where appellant charged with four counts of indecently dealing with child – Where appellant acquitted of all but one count – Where trial judge directed jury not to reason all complainant’s evidence dishonest and cannot be relied upon on basis complainant told or admitted she told lie – Where Court of Appeal found direction erroneous but dismissed appeal on basis no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying proviso and failing to quash the appellant’s conviction.
Documents
16/11/2018 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Perth)
29/11/2018 Notice of appeal
24/12/2018 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/12/2018 Chronology (Appellant)
10/01/2019 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/01/2019 Reply
14/02/2019 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/02/2019 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
14/02/2019 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
20/03/2019 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: McKell v. The Queen
Date: 07 December 2018
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 36m
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: Unions NSW & Ors v. State of New South Wales
Date: 06 December 2018
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1h 39m
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.