Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v. Kumar & Ors
Case No.
P49/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/02/2016 Federal Court of Australia (North J)
Catchwords
Migration – Requirement that visa applicant holds a certain visa at the time of application – Where visa application lodged on the Monday immediately following expiry on Sunday of the previously held visa – Application of s 36(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth).
Documents
02/09/2016 Hearing (SLA, Canberra v/link Perth)
14/09/2016 Notice of appeal
06/10/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)
06/10/2016 Chronology (Appellant)
27/10/2016 Written submissions (First to Third Respondents)
10/11/2016 Reply
09/12/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/03/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Western Australian Planning Commission v. Southregal Pty Ltd & Anor
Western Australian Planning Commission v. Leith
Case No.
P47/2016; P48/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
24/03/2016 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) (Martin CJ, Newnes JA, Murphy JA)
Catchwords
Planning – Statutory construction – Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 173, s 177 – Planning Scheme – Amendment to planning scheme – Injurious affection – Compensation – Whether compensation available to person who subsequently purchased property from owner at the time scheme came into effect.
Documents
01/09/2016 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
14/09/2016 Notice of appeal
06/10/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)
06/10/2016 Chronology (Appellant - Southregal Pty Ltd)
06/10/2016 Chronology (Appellant - Leith)
24/10/2016 Written submissions (Respondents)
31/10/2016 Reply
09/11/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/02/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Prior v. Mole
Case No.
D5/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
3/03/2016 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Court of Appeal) (Riley CJ, Kelly J, Hiley J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Where appellant was taken into protective custody under the Police Administration Act (NT) s 128 – Where appellant spat on police officer – Where appellant was convicted of assault – Construction of s 128(1) of the Police Administration Act (NT) – Exercise of power under s 128(1) – Whether the Police Officer had reasonable grounds to establish that the appellant was likely to commit another offence – Whether the appellants apprehension was lawful.
Documents
01/09/2016 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
15/09/2016 Notice of appeal
20/10/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)
20/10/2016 Chronology (Appellant)
18/11/2016 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/11/2016 Reply
06/12/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
08/03/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Perara-Cathcart v. The Queen
Case No.
A39/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
30/07/2015 Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Kourakis CJ, Gray J, Stanley J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Directions to jury – Proviso – Application of proviso – Where evidence was led at trial about the appellants drug possession – Where Court of Criminal Appeal held that evidence of the appellant’s drug possession was relevant and correctly admitted – Where a majority of the Court of Criminal Appeal held that the trial Judge failed to provide satisfactory directions regarding the permissible use of the evidence of the appellant’s drug possession – Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal correctly applied the proviso.
Documents
01/09/2016 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
13/09/2016 Notice of appeal
06/10/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)
06/10/2016 Chronology (Appellant)
24/10/2016 Written submissions (Respondent)
31/10/2016 Reply
11/11/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
01/03/2017 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Cases:
- Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v. Collins & Anor
- Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v. Tomes
Date: 01 September 2016
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 3h 54m
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.