British American Tobacco Australasia Limited and Ors v. The Commonwealth of Australia
Case No.
S389/2011
Related matter:
S409/2011 – J T International SA 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
01/12/2011 Writ of summons
07/12/2011 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiffs)
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)
28/02/2012 Question reserved
23/03/2012 Notice of Constitutional Matter (Defendant)
26/03/2012 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
26/03/2012 Notice of Constitutional Matter (Van Nelle Tabak Nederland BV & Imperial Tobacco Australia Ltd intervening)
26/03/2012 Written submissions (Van Nelle Tabak Nederland BV & Imperial Tobacco Australia Ltd intervening)
26/03/2012 Written submissions (Phillip Morris Ltd intervening)
26/03/2012 Written submissions (Cancer Council of Australia seeking leave to intervene)
30/03/2012 Notice of Constitutional Matter (Cancer Council Australia)
05/04/2012 Written submissions (Defendant)
05/04/2012 Chronology (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
11/04/2012 Reply (Van Nelle Tabak Nederland BV & Imperial Tobacco Australia Ltd intervening)
11/04/2012 Reply (Phillip Morris Ltd intervening)
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)
15/08/2012 Pronouncement of Orders (Summary)
05/10/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Patel v. The Queen
Case No.
B11/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
21/04/2011 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (McMurdo P, Muir J, A Fraser JA)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Homicide — Manslaughter — Grievous bodily harm — Duty of persons doing dangerous acts — Medical practitioner — Surgery — Applicant convicted of manslaughter of three victims and unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to one victim — Applicant a surgeon who operated on the four victims — Applicant convicted on the basis that his decision to operate in each case was so thoroughly reprehensible that the decision was criminal and deserved criminal punishment — Whether the applicant's decision to operate or to commend surgery to a patient was the doing of an "act" within the meaning of s 288 of the Criminal Code (Q) ("the Code") — Whether s 288 of the Code can have any application to a decision to conduct surgery upon a patient — Whether there was a miscarriage of justice in the conduct of the trial.
Documents
09/02/2012 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by V/link to Brisbane)
23/02/2012 Notice of appeal
09/03/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
09/03/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
05/04/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
26/04/2012 Reply
06/06/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane)
07/06/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane)
24/08/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Burns v. The Queen
Case No.
S46/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
1/04/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (McClellan CJ at CL, Schmidt J, Howie J)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Homicide — Manslaughter — Involuntary manslaughter — Criminal negligence — Duty of care to deceased — Existence of duty of care — Applicant the supplier of illicit drug to victim — Victim died after consuming an illicit drug at the applicant's premises — Victim had consumed two different types of drug — One type of drug was medication consumed by the victim prior to attending the applicant's premises — Victim refused an offer by the applicant's husband to call an ambulance — Whether the circumstances were capable of giving rise to a duty of care — Whether the trial judge's directions as to the existence of a duty of care were erroneous — Whether the trial judge's directions as to causation were erroneous — Whether causation could be established on either limb of involuntary manslaughter where a person by his or her own act voluntarily consumes the substance that is a substantial cause of his or her death.
Documents
10/02/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
21/02/2012 Notice of appeal
09/03/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
09/03/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
30/03/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
17/04/2012 Reply
02/05/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
03/05/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
20/06/2012 Pronouncement of orders (Full Court, Canberra)
14/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Commissioner of Taxation v. Qantas Airways Limited
Case No.
S47/2012
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
1/09/2011 Federal Court of Australia (Stone J, Edmonds J, Perram J)
Catchwords
Taxation — Goods and services tax — Taxable supply — Contract for supply of services — Airline travel — When Goods and services tax ("GST") is payable — Passenger made booking and paid fare but did not take actual flight or receive refund — Whether taxable supply is the making of the reservation itself or the actual travel — Whether the respondent made a "taxable supply" within the meaning of section 9-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) in circumstances where passengers made and paid for reservations or bookings for flights which they subsequently did not take — Whether an amount received as consideration under a contract for supplies is to be excluded from the calculation of GST unless all of the supplies contemplated by the contract are made.
Documents
10/02/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
21/02/2012 Notice of appeal
09/03/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
09/03/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
30/03/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
10/04/2012 Reply
04/06/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane)
05/06/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Brisbane)
02/10/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Beck v. Weinstock and Ors
Case No.
S56/2012
Related matter
S266/2012 - Weinstock & Ors v. Beck & Anor
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/08/2011 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Giles JA, Handley AJA, Young JA)
Catchwords
Corporations law — Redeemable preference shares — Validity of issue — Rights attaching to shares — Eight C class shares were allotted in the third respondent ("the Company") — No other shares in the Company over which the C class shares conferred any priority or preference were ever issued — Directors of the Company resolved to redeem the eight C class shares for a nominal amount — Whether other shares, over which preference is enjoyed, must exist for redeemable preference shares to be valid — Whether eight C class shares in the Company were redeemable preference shares for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2011 (Cth) notwithstanding that there were never any other shares issued in the Company by reference to which the C class shares conferred preference.
Documents
10/02/2012 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
24/02/2012 Notice of appeal
09/03/2012 Written submissions (Appellant)
09/03/2012 Chronology (Appellant)
30/03/2012 Written submissions (Respondent)
10/04/2012 Reply
21/06/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
14/11/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
15/11/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
01/05/2013 Judgment (Judgment summary)