The Ship Go Star v. Daebo International Shipping Co Ltd
Case No.
P46/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
7/11/2012 Federal Court of Australia (Keane CJ, Rares J, Besanko J)
Catchwords
Admiralty law – Choice of law – Tort – Proper lex loci delicti in action in rem against ship and action in personam against owners for inducing breach of contract – Trial judge found Chinese law applied and dismissed claim on basis that no such tort exists in China – Full Federal Court found Singaporean law applied – In absence of evidence as to Singaporean law applied Australian law and found tortious interference – Whether the proper lex loci delicti is the place of the inducement or the place of the breach.
Documents
11/09/2013 Hearing (SLA, Perth)
24/09/2013 Notice of appeal
16/10/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
16/10/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
06/11/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
06/11/2013 Chronology (Respondent)
20/11/2013 Reply
26/11/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)(Audio-visual recording) (Special leave revoked)
Taylor v. The Owners - Strata Plan No 11564 and Ors
Case No.
S179/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/03/2013 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (McColl JA, Basten JA and Hoeben JA)
Catchwords
Statutes – Interpretation – Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (“the CLA Act”) – Appellant brought claim under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW) for compensation for accidental death of her husband – Section 12(2) of the CLA Act directs the court to disregard “excess” earnings of a high-earning “claimant” but does not refer to earnings of the “deceased” – Late husband had earned substantially in excess of three times average weekly earnings – Whether a reference to “a deceased person’s” earnings can be read into section 12(2) of the CLA Act so as to disregard the deceased person’s earnings above the statutory formula – Whether additional words can be read into a statute where ordinary meaning of the text is not unreasonable or absurd.
Documents
06/09/2013 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
19/09/2013 Notice of appeal
24/09/2013 Submitting appearance (Fifth Respondent)
03/10/2013 Submitting appearance (Tenth Respondent)
11/10/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
11/10/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
06/11/2013 Submitting appearance (Eighth and Ninth Respondents)
08/11/2013 Written submissions (Sixth Respondent)
08/11/2013 Written submissions (First to Fourth Respondents)
25/11/2013 Reply
07/02/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
02/04/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Limited v. Hills Industries Limited and Anor
Case No.
S163/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
4/12/2012 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bathurst CJ, Allsop P, Meagher JA)
Catchwords
Equity – Restitution – “Change of position” defence – AFSL paid money to Hills and another company to enable a third party to purchase certain equipment from Hills and the other company and then lease that equipment to the third party – The third party fabricated documents and contrary to AFSL’s belief no equipment was acquired – AFSL commenced proceedings in restitution against Hills and the other company – Trial Judge found for AFSL on basis that Hills gave no consideration for monies received from AFSL and Hills had not suffered detriment arising out of a speculative change of its position after receiving those monies – Decision reversed on appeal – Court of Appeal held that by discharging debts owed to Hills by the third party Hills had given up opportunity to enforce payment of those debts – Whether defence of “change of position” in claims for money paid to third party by financier under mistake of fact extends to this situation – Whether in order to make out defence of change of position defendant is required to point to specific and quantifiable expenditure or financial loss because of mistaken payment?
Documents
16/08/2013 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
30/08/2013 Notice of appeal
20/09/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
20/09/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
11/10/2013 Written submissions (First Respondent)
18/10/2013 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
01/11/2013 Reply
11/02/2014 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
07/05/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Li v. Chief of Army
Case No.
S162/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
26/02/2013 Federal Court of Australia (Keane CJ, Dowsett J, Logan J, Jagot J, Yates J)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Restricted Court Martial – Appellant convicted of creating a disturbance under s 33(b) of the Act – Proper construction of s 33(b) – Whether offence under s 33(b) requires proof that the accused intended to create a disturbance – Whether Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code (Cth) permits fault element of an offence to be framed by reference to terms and particulars of charge rather than terms of section creating offence – Whether offence under s 33(b) requires an element of actual violence.
Words and phrases – “Creates a disturbance”.
Documents
16/08/2013 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
29/08/2013 Notice of appeal
20/09/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
20/09/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
11/10/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
23/10/2013 Reply
31/10/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
27/11/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
James v. The Queen
Case No.
M102/2013
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
19/03/2013 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Maxwell P, Whelan & Priest JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Alternative verdicts – Appellant convicted of intentionally causing serious injury – On Appeal appellant contended that trial judge’s failure to leave to jury possible alternative verdict of intentionally causing injury (as opposed to serious injury) constituted miscarriage of justice – Court of Appeal rejected contention – Defence counsel had chosen not to leave alternative verdict open for forensic reasons – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that trial judge not bound to leave the alternative verdict open for consideration by jury – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that trial judge’s duty to leave to jury for its consideration lesser alternative verdicts, that are realistically, or fairly and practically open, does not transcend forensic decision of trial counsel.
Documents
16/08/2013 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
30/08/2013 Notice of appeal
20/09/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
20/09/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
26/09/2013 Amended Written submissions (Appellant)
11/10/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
25/10/2013 Reply
07/11/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
05/03/2014 Judgment (Judgment summary)