ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd v. Goudappel and Anor
Case No.
S201/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/04/2013 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bathurst CJ, Beazley P, Basten JA)
Catchwords
Statutes – Interpretation – Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (“WCA”), s 66 – First respondent suffered injury in course of employment – Assessed as having a degree of whole person impairment of 6% – Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 (NSW), Schedule 2 amended WCA s 66 – New s 66 provided that no compensation payable unless impairment was greater than 10% – Schedule 12 inserted Pt 19H into Schedule 6 WCA which provided that amendments extend to claims for compensation made before commencement of the amendment – Whether first respondent entitled to compensation.
Documents
11/10/2013 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
23/10/2013 Notice of appeal
15/11/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
15/11/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
02/12/2013 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
10/12/2013 Written submissions (First Respondent)
18/12/2013 Reply
01/04/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
16/05/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Thiess v. Collector of Customs and Ors
Case No.
B57/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
22/03/2013 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (de Jersey CJ, Muir JA, Fraser JA)
Catchwords
Statutes – Interpretation – Customs Act 1901 (Cth) (“the Act”) s 167 – Appellant’s customs broker paid customs duty and GST on imported yacht – Customs broker input incorrect import duty into self-assessment system as result of mistaken belief about weight of yacht – Appellant later became aware of mistake and commenced proceedings to recover monies paid – Whether s 167(4) of the Act prevents action for recovery of customs duty paid due to mistake of fact where no protest under s 167(1).
Documents
11/10/2013 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by v/link to Brisbane)
23/10/2013 Notice of appeal
18/11/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
20/11/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
10/12/2013 Written submissions (First and Second Respondents)
20/02/2014 Reply
05/03/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
02/04/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Moseley v. Director of Public Prosecutions
Case No.
D4/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
1/03/2013 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Court of Appeal) (Riley CJ, Kelly J, Barr J)
Catchwords
Supreme Court – Jurisdiction – Appellant convicted of aggravated robbery in company of a second person – After sentencing, third person signed statutory declaration confessing that he was the person who accompanied the second person, not the appellant – Court of Criminal Appeal subsequently quashed appellant’s conviction and ordered a retrial – Third person then recanted confession and alleged that the appellant induced him to make a false confession – Supreme Court ruled it had equitable jurisdiction to set aside decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal where fraud established – Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction – Whether, notwithstanding, the Supreme Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction.
Documents
11/10/2013 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by v/link to Sydney)
23/10/2013 Notice of appeal
07/11/2013 Notice of Discontinuance
Attorney-General for the Northern Territory and Anor v. Emmerson and Anor
Case No.
D5/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/03/2013 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Court of Appeal) (Riley CJ, Kelly J, Barr J)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Judicial power – Institutional integrity – Kable principle – Criminal Property Forfeiture Act (NT) (“CPFA”), s 94(1) and Misuse of Drugs Act (NT) (“MDA”), s 36A(3) operate to forfeit certain property of a person declared to be a drug trafficker – Respondent convicted of various possession and supply offences – DPP obtained restraining order over all property owned or controlled by respondent under CPFA ss 41 and 44 on basis that conviction could lead to him being declared a drug trafficker under s 36A(3) MDA – Only a small component of that property was derived from crime – Whether the CPFA and MDA impermissibly conscript the Supreme Court to the implementation of a legislative or executive purpose – Whether CPFA and MDA undermine institutional integrity of NTSC in a degree incompatible with its role as a repository of federal jurisdiction.
Documents
11/10/2013 Hearing (SLA, Canberra)
23/10/2013 Notice of appeal
08/11/2013 Submitting appearance (Second Respondent)
15/11/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
15/11/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
22/11/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
22/11/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
22/11/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
29/11/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
06/12/2013 Written submissions (First Respondent)
13/12/2013 Reply to interveners (First Respondent)
20/12/2013 Reply
15/01/2014 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
04/02/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
05/02/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/04/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Li v. Chief of Army
Date: 31 October 2013
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 2h 19m
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.