Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Cases:
- Air New Zealand Ltd v. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
- PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Date: 03 March 2017
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 3h 56m
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
Cases:
- Air New Zealand Ltd v. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
- PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Date: 02 March 2017
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 33m
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
Cases:
Date: 28 February 2017
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 43m
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.
State of New South Wales v. DC & Anor
Case No.
S35/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
10/08/2016 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Basten JA, Ward JA, Sackville AJA)
Catchwords
Negligence – Duty of care – Vicarious liability – Where stepfather sexually abused respondents – Where Department removed respondents after receiving complaint from one of the respondents – Where stepfather continued to have contact with respondents – Children Welfare Act 1939 (NSW) s 148B – Whether appellant owed duty of care to respondents that extended to reporting allegations against stepfather to police – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to identify basis upon which appellant liable directly or vicariously in circumstances where no finding that any officer negligent.
Documents
10/02/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Sydney)
23/02/2017 Notice of appeal
17/03/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/03/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
07/04/2017 Written submissions (Respondents)
07/04/2017 Chronology (Respondents)
21/04/2017 Reply
10/05/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/06/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
The Queen v. Holliday
Case No.
C3/2017
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
26/08/2016 Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Court of Appeal) (Murrell CJ, Refshauge J, Wigney J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Where respondent alleged to have incited the procurement of another person to commit the offence of kidnapping – Whether offence of incitement under Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 47 can be committed by inciting another person to procure a third person to commit an offence – Whether offence of incitement complete at the point of the urging – Whether Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45(2)(a) and 45(3) constitute a “limitation or qualifying provision” for purposes of s 47(5) such that offence of incitement not complete until offence of kidnapping committed.
Documents
10/02/2017 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Sydney)
24/02/2017 Notice of appeal
17/03/2017 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/03/2017 Chronology (Appellant)
06/04/2017 Written submissions (Respondent)
20/04/2017 Reply
15/06/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Sydney)
06/09/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)