Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Kuczborski v. The State of Queensland
Date: 02 September 2014
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 26m (recorded in Brisbane)
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.
Korda & Ors v. Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Limited
Case No.
M82/2014
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
10/04/2014 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Maxwell P, Osborn JA & Robson AJA)
Catchwords
Equity – Trusts – Investment scheme – Investors invited to invest in timber plantation – Different operating companies undertook cultivation, milling and sale of timber – According to Trust Deed, trustee was to hold proceeds of timber sales for investors – Operating companies were liquidated before sale proceeds were paid to trustee – Whether commercial necessity mandated imputation of unstated trust over timber proceeds before payment to trustee.
Documents
15/08/2014 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
28/08/2014 Notice of appeal
19/09/2014 Written submissions (Appellants)
19/09/2014 Chronology (Appellants)
10/10/2014 Written submissions (Respondent)
24/10/2014 Reply
06/11/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
Commissioner of State Revenue v. Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd
Commissioner of State Revenue v. Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd
Commissioner of State Revenue v. Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd
Commissioner of State Revenue v. Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd
Commissioner of State Revenue v. Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd
Commissioner of State Revenue v. Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd
Commissioner of State Revenue v. Lend Lease IMT 2 (HP) Pty Ltd
Commissioner of State Revenue v. Lend Lease Real Estate Investments Limited
Case No.
M74/2014 to M81/2014
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/08/2013 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Warren CJ, Tate JA & Kyrou AJA)
Catchwords
Stamp duty – Consideration for dutiable transaction – Identification of consideration for dutiable transactions in circumstances where purchaser of dutiable property promises to make series of different payments at different times and where promises are contained in multiple instruments – Seven parcels of land were transferred according to multiple instruments – Whether consideration for dutiable transaction should be identified by instruments which effect dutiable transaction and consideration expressed in each instrument and/or by asking whether given instrument is correct instrument – Whether s 20 of Duties Act 2000 (Vic) should be construed as limited to promises if and insofar as they moved transfer of dutiable property in condition it was at time of transfer.
Documents
15/08/2014 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
28/08/2014 Notice of appeal
19/09/2014 Written submissions (Appellant)
19/09/2014 Chronology (Appellant)
10/10/2014 Written submissions (Respondents)
24/10/2014 Reply
04/11/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
05/11/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/12/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association & Anor v. Fletcher & Ors
Case No.
S229/2014
Related matter.
S228/2014 - Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v. Fletcher & Ors
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/02/2014 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Beazley P, Macfarlan JA, Gleeson JA)
Catchwords
Corporations law – Insolvency – Voidable transactions – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“Act”), s 588FF(3) – Under s 588FF(3)(b), court made order extending time for first respondent to bring proceedings under s 588(1) of Act against second respondent – After expiry of period within which any application under 588FF(3)(b) was able to be made, further court order was made under r 36.16(2)(b) of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) varying original extension order – Effect of variation order was to extend period within which any s 588(1) application had to be brought by further six months – Whether r 36.16(2)(b) of UCPR permits further extension of three year period specified in s 588FF(3)(a) of Act by order varying earlier valid extension in circumstances where the application for such variation is made on a date after the expiry of original three year period.
Documents
15/08/2014 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
28/08/2014 Notice of appeal
19/09/2014 Written submissions (Appellant)
19/09/2014 Chronology (Appellant)
10/10/2014 Written submissions (Respondents)
24/10/2014 Reply
12/11/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/03/2015 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v. Fletcher & Ors
Case No.
S228/2014
Related matter.
S229/2014 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association & Anor v. Fletcher & Ors
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/02/2014 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Beazley P, Macfarlan JA, Gleeson JA)
Catchwords
Corporations law – Insolvency – Voidable transactions – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“Act”), s 588FF(3) – Under s 588FF(3)(b), court made order extending time for first respondent to bring proceedings under s 588(1) of Act against second respondent – After expiry of period within which any application under 588FF(3)(b) was able to be made, further court order was made under r 36.16(2)(b) of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) varying original extension order – Effect of variation order was to extend period within which any s 588(1) application had to be brought by further six months – Whether r 36.16(2)(b) of UCPR permits further extension of three year period specified in s 588FF(3)(a) of Act by order varying earlier valid extension in circumstances where the application for such variation is made on a date after the expiry of original three year period.
Documents
15/08/2014 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
28/08/2014 Notice of appeal
19/09/2014 Written submissions (Appellant)
19/09/2014 Chronology (Appellant)
10/10/2014 Written submissions (Respondents)
24/10/2014 Reply
12/11/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/03/2015 Judgment (Judgment summary)