RP v. The Queen
Case No.
S193/2016
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
26/08/2015 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (Johnson J, Davies J, Hamill J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years – Where accused was aged between 11 and 13 years – Doli incapax – Whether presumption rebutted – Test for establishing whether doli incapax presumption rebutted.
Documents
21/07/2016 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
03/08/2016 Notice of appeal
19/08/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)
19/08/2016 Chronology (Appellant)
09/09/2016 Written submissions (Respondent)
15/09/2016 Reply
08/11/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
21/12/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) v. Tomes
Case No.
M101/2016
Related matter:
M98/2016 – Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v. Collins & Anor
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
1/06/2016 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Warren CJ, Santamaria and McLeish JJA)
Catchwords
Procedure – Group proceedings - Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) – Managed investment schemes – Collapse of schemes – Group proceeding on behalf of investors in schemes – Defendants include lender to investors – Dismissal of group proceeding – opt out provisions – Subsequent recovery proceedings by lender against group memebers – Group members had not opted out of group proceeding – Group members raised individual claims and defences in recovery proceedings – Whether failure to opt out of group proceeding precluded group members from raising individual claims and defences in recovery proceedings.
Procedure – Group proceedings – Anshun estoppel – Test – Whether unreasonable of group members not to have raised individual claims and defences during group proceeding – Whether group members estopped from raising individual claims and defenced in subsequent proceedings by a reason of failure to raise individual claims and defences in the group proceedings – Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589.
Procedure – Group proceedings – Abuse of process – Failure of plaintiff of group members to raise individual claims in group proceedings – Whether raising individual claims and defences by group members in subsequent proceedings is oppressive or brings administration of justice into disrepute.
Documents
28/07/2016 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane)
01/08/2016 Notice of appeal
05/08/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)
05/08/2016 Chronology (Appellant)
19/08/2016 Written submissions (Respondent)
26/08/2016 Reply
01/09/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/11/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v. Collins & Anor
Case No.
M98/2016
Related matter
M101/2016 - Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v. Tomes
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
1/06/2016 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Warren CJ, Santamaria & McLeish JJA)
Catchwords
Procedure – Group proceedings - Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) – Managed investment schemes – Collapse of schemes – Group proceeding on behalf of investors in schemes – Defendants include lender to investors – Dismissal of group proceeding – opt out provisions – Subsequent recovery proceedings by lender against group memebers – Group members had not opted out of group proceeding – Group members raised individual claims and defences in recovery proceedings – Whether failure to opt out of group proceeding precluded group members from raising individual claims and defences in recovery proceedings.
Procedure – Group proceedings – Anshun estoppel – Test – Whether unreasonable of group members not to have raised individual claims and defences during group proceeding – Whether group members estopped from raising individual claims and defenced in subsequent proceedings by a reason of failure to raise individual claims and defences in the group proceedings – Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589.
Procedure – Group proceedings – Abuse of process – Failure of plaintiff of group members to raise individual claims in group proceedings – Whether raising individual claims and defences by group members in subsequent proceedings is oppressive or brings administration of justice into disrepute.
Documents
20/07/2016 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
27/07/2016 Notice of appeal
05/08/2016 Written submissions (Appellant)
05/08/2016 Chronology (Appellant)
19/08/2016 Written submissions (Respondents)
26/08/2016 Reply
01/09/2016 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/11/2016 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Prince Alfred College Incorporated v. ADC
Date: 21 July 2016
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 45m
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: Simic & Ors v. NSW Land and Housing Corporation & Ors
Date: 20 July 2016
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 21m (Due to a technical glitch, there is a gap of 5 minutes of video, approximately 1 hour and 5 minutes into the recording).
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.