Andrews and Ors v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited
Case No.
M48/2012
Case Information
Catchwords
Contract law — Liquidated damages — Law of penalties — History of the law of penalties — Law of penalties in Australia and United Kingdom — Relationship between equity and the common law — Requirement for breach — Relationship between banker and customer — Applicants customers of respondent ("ANZ") — ANZ charged customers a variety of fees for overdrawn facilities, overdrawn accounts, dishonouring instructions and over-limit credit card accounts ("Exception Fees") — Whether Exception Fees were capable of characterisation as penalties — Whether the "jurisdiction" in respect of penalties is available only at common law or remains alive in equity — Scope of jurisdiction in equity — Whether relief against penalties requires a breach of contract — Whether jurisdiction to relieve against penalties capable of application in any transaction where, viewed as a matter of substance, an obligation is imposed on one party to pay a sum of money or transfer property to the other in order to secure the performance or enjoyment of a principal object of that transaction — Consideration of core banking law principles pertaining to banker customer relationship — Whether relief against penalties available against Exception Fees.
Documents
11/05/2012 Hearing (Removal, Canberra)
23/05/2012 Cause removed - Appeal
08/06/2012 Written submissions (Applicants)
08/06/2012 Chronology (Applicants)
29/06/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
16/07/2012 Reply
14/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
06/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Attorney-General for South Australia v. Corporation of the City of Adelaide and Ors
Case No.
A16/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
10/08/2011 Supreme Court of South Australia (Doyle CJ, White J, Kourakis J)
Catchwords
Constitutional law (Cth) — Operation and effect of Constitution — Interpretation — Implied freedom of political communication about government or political matters — System of representative and responsible government — Local government — Clauses 2.3 and 2.8 of the Corporation of the City of Adelaide By-Law No 4 (Roads), inter alia, prohibited preaching, canvassing, haranguing, and distribution of printed matter without permission on roads ("by-law") — Application of constitutional freedom of communication about government and political matters where possible to seek judicial review of an administrative decision that refused consent to communicate — Whether by-law complies with limitations on legislative power delegated to local government under s 667(1)9(XVI) of the Local Government Act 1934 (SA) — Whether impugned by-law effectively burdens freedom of communicating about government and political matters — Whether by-law reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve legitimate end in manner compatible with maintenance of representative and responsible government — Whether potential that by-law may be erroneously administered relevant to validity.
Documents
11/05/2012 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by v/link to Adelaide)
23/05/2012 Notice of appeal
24/05/2012 Notice of Constitutional Matter
08/06/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
08/06/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
15/06/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
15/06/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
15/06/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
26/06/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
29/06/2012 Written submissions (First Respondent)
29/06/2012 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
29/06/2012 Written submissions (Third Respondent)
03/07/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
13/07/2012 Reply (Appellant)
19/07/2012 Reply (First Respondent)
25/09/2012 Summons seeking leave to intervene and appear as amicus curiae (Human Rights Law Centre)
25/09/2012 Written submissions (Human Rights Law Centre)
27/09/2012 Summons seeking leave to amend Notice of Contention and file supplementary submissions (Third Respondent)
27/09/2012 Supplementary written submissions (Third Respondent)
02/10/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
03/10/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
27/02/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Likiardopoulos v. The Queen
Case No.
M24/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/12/2010 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Buchanan, Ashley, and Tate JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Homicide — Murder — Joint criminal enterprise — Counselling and procuring — Deceased victim an intellectually disabled 22 year old — Victim was missing for several months before body found — Applicant and others were charged with murder — Evidence demonstrated that applicant and co-accused engaged in sustained assault over the course of several days on the victim — Crown accepted pleas of lesser offences by applicant's co-accused namely manslaughter and being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter — Applicant found guilty of murder — Whether it is an abuse of process for the Crown to present a case based on the allegation that an accused has counselled or procured another or others to commit murder (a derivative form of liability) when none of the alleged principals had been convicted of murder — Whether the trial judge erred in leaving to the jury the accused's liability for counselling or procuring another or others to commit murder when none of the alleged principals had been convicted of murder.
Documents
09/03/2012 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
23/03/2012 Notice of appeal
10/04/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
10/04/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
01/05/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
31/05/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
14/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Madeleine Louise Sweeney by her next friend Norma Bell v. Thornton
Case No.
S321/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
23/08/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Campbell JA, Sackville AJA and Tobias AJA)
Catchwords
Torts — Negligence — Motor vehicle accident — Duty of care — Applicant learner driver — Content of duty of care owed by voluntary supervisor to learner driver — Applicant suffered personal injury when she crashed a car when navigating a bend — Whether supervisor’s failure to warn driver to reduce speed constituted breach of the duty of care — Whether the Court of Appeal erred as to the content of the respondent's duty of care — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings on causation — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its limitation of effect of the respondent's admission on the content of the duty of care — Whether the Court of Appeal erred with respect to various factual findings.
Documents
19/09/2011 Application for special leave to appeal
09/03/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
10/04/2012 Written submissions (Applicant)
10/04/2012 Chronology (Applicant)
21/05/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
21/05/2012 Affidavit seeking leave to file Notice of Contention (Respondent)
29/05/2012 Reply
08/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Special leave refused)
JT International SA v. Commonwealth of Australia
Case No.
S409/2011
Related matter:
S389/2011 – British American Tobacco Australasia Limited & Ors v. Commonwealth of Australia
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law (Cth) — Commonwealth Constitution, s 51(xxxi) — Constitutional guarantees — Express limits on Commonwealth legislative power — Implied limits on Commonwealth legislative power — Acquisition of property on just terms — Plaintiffs' hold trade marks some of which registered under Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ("Trade Marks") — Plaintiffs were entitled to use Trade Marks for tobacco products and packaging of tobacco products — Plaintiffs' hold copyright in distinctive tobacco packaging ("Copyright Works") — Plaintiffs' registered owner of tobacco packaging designs registered under Designs Act 2003 (Cth) ("the Designs") — Plaintiffs' hold patents relating to form of tobacco products registered pursuant to Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ("the Patents") — Plaintiffs' tobacco products use distinctive trade dress and get up which utilise the Trade Marks and/or reproduce Copyright Works ("the Get Up") — The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Cth) ("the Packaging Act") regulates and standardises retail packaging and appearance of tobacco products — Section 15 of the Packaging Act provides, inter alia, that the Act does not apply to the extent (if any) that its operation would result in an unconstitutional acquisition of property from a person otherwise than on just terms — Whether the Packaging Act would, but for the operation of s 15, result in unconstitutional acquisition of plaintiffs' property comprising the Trade Marks, Copyright Works, the Get Up, licensing goodwill, the Designs, the Patents, packaging goodwill, packaging rights and intellectual property licence rights ("the Property") otherwise than on just terms — Whether by reason of s 15 the Packaging Act's operative provisions do not apply to and have no operation with respect to the Property — Whether the Packaging Act impermissibly confers legislative power upon judiciary — Whether if by purporting to identify the circumstances to which it validly applies the Packaging Act falls outside the scope of legislative power conferred by s 51(xxxi) — Whether the Packaging Act invalid because its purported enactment did not involve an exercise of legislative power to make "laws" conferred by s 51(xxxi).
Documents
15/12/2011 Writ of summons
15/12/2011 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiff)
24/01/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
07/02/2012 Defence (Defendant)
23/02/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
27/02/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)
27/02/2012 Question reserved
28/02/2012 Demurrer (Plaintiff)
23/02/2012 Notice of Constitutional Matter
26/03/2012 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
26/03/2012 Written submissions (Cancer Council of Australia seeking leave to intervene)
26/03/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)
30/03/2012 Notice of Constitutional Matter (Cancer Council Australia)
05/04/2012 Written submissions (Defendant)
05/04/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory intervening)
05/04/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory intervening)
11/04/2012 Reply
12/04/2012 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
17/04/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
18/04/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
19/04/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
23/04/2012 Supplementary Note (Plaintiff)
15/08/2012 Pronouncement of Orders (Summary)
05/10/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)