Kuczborski v. The State of Queensland
Case No.
B14/2014
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law - Limitation on State legislative power - Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Qld), s 7 - Criminal Code (Qld), ss 60A, 60B(1) and 60C - Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 16(3A) - Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), ss 12(1B), 13(1B), 41(1)(c), 65A, 267A, 344AA, 350A - Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), ss 29(1A), 32, 40(2A) - Liquor Act 1992 (Qld), ss 173EB and 173EC - Whether provisions are invalid on ground that they infringe an implied freedom of association.
Constitutional law - Limitation on State legislative power - Criminal Code (Qld), ss 60A, 60B(1) and 60C - Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), ss 12(1B), 13(1B), 41(1)(c), 65A, 267A, 344AA, 350A - Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), ss 29(1A), 32, 40(2A) - Liquor Act 1992 (Qld), ss 173EB and 173EC - Whether provisions are invalid on ground that they infringe implied freedom of communication on government and political matters.
Constitutional law - Limitation on State legislative power - Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Qld), s 7 - Criminal Code (Qld), ss 60A, 60B(1) and 60C - Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 16(3A) - Whether provisions are invalid on ground that they infringe Kable principle.
Constitutional law - Limitation on State legislative power - Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Qld), s 7 - Criminal Code (Qld), s 60A - Liquor Act 1992 (Qld), ss 173EB and 173EC - Whether provisions are invalid under s 109 of Constitution because inconsistent with Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) or Copyright Act 1986 (Cth).
Standing - Whether plaintiff has standing to seek a declaration that provisions are invalid.
Remedies - Whether relief sought by plaintiff is hypothetical.
Documents
19/03/2014 Writ of summons
25/03/2014 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)
12/05/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)
02/06/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)
23/06/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane)
23/06/2014 Special case stated
27/06/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra v/link Brisbane)
16/07/2014 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
16/07/2014 Chronology
22/07/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Brisbane)
23/07/2014 Amended Special Case
23/07/2014 Amended written submissions (Plaintiff)
11/08/2014 Written submissions (Defendant)
15/08/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
15/08/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
15/08/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory intervening)
15/08/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
15/08/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
15/08/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
22/08/2014 Reply
02/09/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane) (Audio-visual recording)
03/09/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane) (Audio-visual recording)
14/11/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Hunter and New England Local Health District v. McKenna
Hunter and New England Local Health District v. Simon & Anor
Case No.
S142/2014; S143/2014
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/12/2013 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Beazley P, Macfarlan JA and Garling J)
Catchwords
Tort law - Negligence - Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("CLA"), ss 5B, 5D(1), 5O(1), 43(1) and 43A - Person detained as mentally ill person under Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) and discharged next day into care of friend - Person had psychotic episode and killed friend - Family of deceased claimed damages for mental harm due to shock of learning of death - Whether health authorities owe a duty of care to third parties in exercise of statutory powers to detain and discharge mentally ill patients - Whether it is appropriate for health authority's scope of liability to extend to patient's unlawful action in killing the respondents' relative - Whether professional service provided must have conformed to "a practice" that was in existence at time it was provided and must that "practice" be widely accepted by peer professional opinion - Whether a finding of common law negligence can give rise to liability that is "based on a breach of statutory duty" - Whether s 43A of CLA provides a defence to health authority.
Documents
20/06/2014 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
03/07/2014 Notice of appeal
25/07/2014 Written submissions (Appellant - S142/2014)
25/07/2014 Chronology (Appellant - S142/2014)
25/07/2014 Written submissions (Appellant - S143/2014)
25/07/2014 Chronology (Appellant - S143/2014)
20/08/2014 Written submissions (Respondent - S142/2014)
20/08/2014 Written submissions (Respondents - S143/2014)
03/09/2014 Reply (S142/2014)
03/09/2014 Reply (S143/2014)
08/10/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
12/11/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Cassegrain v. Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd
Case No.
S141/2014
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/12/2013 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Beazley P, Basten JA, Macfarlan JA)
Catchwords
Property law - Indefeasibility of title - Fraud exception - Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), ss 42 and 118 - Appellant's husband (Mr Cassegrain) was director of respondent company and acted fraudulently by utilising credit balance in company loan account to purchase property - Property was transferred from respondent company to Mr Cassegrain and appellant - Mr Cassegrain later transferred his interest in property to appellant for nominal consideration - Whether Mr Cassegrain was appellant's agent in relation to giving instructions for execution of Real Property Act transfers and lodgement of registration of transfers - the appellant's title was defeasible because Mr Cassegrain acted as the appellant's agent - Whether appellant's title was defeasible because Mr Cassegrain and the appellant were joint tenants - Whether because of Mr Cassegrain's conduct, the appellant's interest as sole registered proprietor of land was defeasible pursuant to section 118(1)(d) of Act.
Documents
20/06/2014 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
03/07/2014 Notice of appeal
25/07/2014 Written submissions (Appellant)
25/07/2014 Chronology (Appellant)
15/08/2014 Written submissions (Respondent)
29/08/2014 Reply
07/11/2014 Further written submissions (Appellant)
13/11/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
04/02/2015 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Fitzgerald v. The Queen
Date: 19 June 2014
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1h 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: Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v. Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 & Anor
Date: 18 June 2014
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 11m
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.