Kakavas v. Crown Melbourne Limited and Ors
Case No.
M117/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
21/05/2012 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Mandie and Bongiorno JJA and Almond AJA)
Catchwords
Equity – Unconscionable dealing – Appellant gambled at respondent's casino over extended period of time – Appellant alleged to suffer from psychiatric condition known as "pathological gambling" – Appellant also subject to "interstate exclusion order" for purposes of Casino Control Act 1991 (Vic) at all relevant times – Whether series of gambling transactions between appellant and respondent affected by unconscionable dealing – Whether respondent liable for unconscionable dealing in circumstances where its officers did not bring to mind matters known to them which placed the appellant at a special disadvantage – What constitutes constructive notice of a special disadvantage in a claim of unconscionable dealing against a corporate person – Whether 'equality of bargaining position' test for determining whether person under 'special disadvantage'.
Trade practices – Unconscionable conduct – Gambling transactions – Section 51AA for the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – Whether gambling transactions involved a contravention of s 51AA of the Trade Practices Act.
Documents
14/12/2012 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
21/12/2012 Notice of appeal
25/01/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
25/01/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
15/02/2013 Written submissions (Respondents)
01/03/2013 Reply
04/04/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/04/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/06/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
State of NSW v. Kable
Case No.
S352/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
8/08/2012 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)
(Allsop P, Basten JA, Campbell JA, Meagher JA, McClellan CJ at CL.)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Judicial power – Respondent detained pursuant to order of Supreme Court on application of Director of Public proceedings pursuant to purported State legislation – Legislation subsequently held invalid – Respondent sought damages from the appellant for false imprisonment – Whether orders of Supreme Court valid until set aside – Whether the orders of a State Supreme Court exercising federal jurisdiction in resolving the constitutionality of a State Act and exercising powers pursuant to that Act are deprived of the character of judicial orders by reason of the subsequent invalidity of the State Act.
Torts – False imprisonment – Defences – Lawful authority – Respondent held under order of Supreme Court that was subsequently set aside – Whether persons acting to obey orders of a State Supreme Court, which were valid on their face, have defence of lawful authority to tortious liability at common law.
Documents
14/12/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
19/12/2012 Notice of appeal
19/12/2012 Notice of constitutional matter (Appellant)
02/01/2013 Notice of Contention (Respondent)
02/01/2013 Notice of constitutional matter (Respondent)
25/01/2013 Written submissions (Appellant)
25/01/2013 Chronology (Appellant)
01/02/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
01/02/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
01/02/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
08/02/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland)
15/02/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
01/03/2013 Reply
09/04/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
05/06/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Commissioner of Taxation v. Unit Trend Services Pty Ltd ACN 010 382 242
Case No.
B61/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/08/2012 Federal Court of Australia (Dowsett J, Bennett J, Greenwood J)
Catchwords
Taxation – Goods and services tax – Anti-avoidance – Anti-avoidance provisions in Div 165 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) enable Commissioner of Taxation to negate GST benefit derived from a scheme – Provisions do not apply if GST benefit attributable to the making of a "choice, election, application or agreement expressly provided for by the GST law" – Where property development scheme involved a combination of several choices provided for by GST law – Whether GST benefit attributable to choice or to scheme – Meaning of s 165-5(1)(b) of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth).
Documents
02/11/2012 Application for special leave to appeal
14/12/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
04/02/2013 Written submissions (Applicant)
04/02/2013 Chronology
13/02/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
19/02/2013 Reply
14/03/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
01/05/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v. JM
Case No.
M73/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
14/06/2012 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Warren CJ, Nettle & Hansen JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – Market manipulation – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1041A – Transaction alleged to have or likely to have effect of creating artificial price for shares on ASX – Meaning of 'artificial price' in s 1041 of the Corporations Act – Whether meaning of 'artificial price' informed by equivalent US jurisprudential conceptions of 'cornering' and 'squeezing'.
Documents
20/07/2012 Application for special leave to appeal
14/12/2012 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
21/12/2012 Notice of Constitutional Matter
25/01/2013 Written submissions (Applicant)
31/01/2013 Amended Chronology (Applicant)
25/01/2013 Written submissions (Respondent's on Cross Appeal)
25/01/2013 Chronology (Respondent's on Cross Appeal)
15/02/2013 Written submissions (Respondent)
15/02/2013 Written submissions (Applicant's on Cross Appeal)
01/03/2013 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
08/03/2013 Reply (Applicant)
08/03/2013 Reply (Respondent's on Cross Appeal)
07/05/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
08/05/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
27/06/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Plaintiff M79/2012 v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Case No.
M79/2012
Case Information
Catchwords
Citizenship and Migration – Refugees – Plaintiff 'offshore entry person' – Plaintiff made a request for a refugee status assessment – Delegate determined that Plaintiff did not meet the definition of 'refugee' in Art 1A of the Refugees Convention – Plaintiff applied for independent merits review and subsequently judicial review – Judicial review decision remains reserved – Minister intervened under s 195A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and granted the Plaintiff a temporary safe haven visa permitting a stay of seven days and a bridging E visa permitting a stay of six months – Grant of temporary safe haven visa bars plaintiff's application for protection visa under s 91L of the Migration Act – Whether temporary safe heaven visa validly granted – Whether plaintiff's application for a protection visa valid.
Documents
22/08/2012 Application for an order to show cause
27/09/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
30/10/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne)
30/10/2012 Special case stated
11/12/2012 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
11/12/2012 Chronology (Plaintiff)
11/01/2013 Written submissions (Defendant)
21/01/2013 Reply
08/02/2013 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
29/05/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)