Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v. The Queen
Case No.
M126/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/02/2011 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Nettle, Neave JJA and Kyrou AJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Occupational health and safety — Duties of employer — Control — Applicant convicted of breaching s 21(1) of Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) ("Act") following death of driver ("decedent") engaged as independent contractor by applicant — Decedent struck by crate being moved by forklift operated by unlicensed driver employed by third party company engaged as independent contractor by applicant — Court of Appeal held trial judge's directions to jury inadequate on basis that jury ought to have been directed that, if satisfied that control on the part of the applicant was established, they were bound to consider whether they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant's engagement of independent contractors was not sufficient to discharge obligations — Court of Appeal held no substantial miscarriage of justice occasioned by misdirection and applied s 568(1) of Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ("proviso") to dismiss appeal — Whether Court of Appeal erred in application of proviso by finding it had discretion to apply proviso and in circumstances where applicant was denied jury's consideration of one of its principal defences.
Documents
02/09/2011 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
14/09/2011 Notice of appeal
28/09/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
28/09/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
19/10/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
28/10/2011 Reply
07/02/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
30/03/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Australian Education Union v. General Manager of Fair Work Australia and Ors
Case No.
M8/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
20/12/2010 Federal Court of Australia (Greenwood, Tracey and Buchanan JJ)
Catchwords
Industrial law — Registered organisations — Interpretation of Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) ("Act") — Third respondent applied to Australian Industrial Relations Commission ("AIRC") for registration and organisation under Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) — Applicant objected to registration — AIRC granted application for registration — Full Court of Federal Court ("FCAFC") quashed decision of AIRC and third respondent's registration because its rules did not contain "purging rule" — Third respondent applied to AIRC for leave to change its rules — Applicant objected to application and FCAFC reserved decision — On 1 July 2009, s 26A of the Act, which provides that registration of an organisation which would have been valid but for the absence of a purging rule is taken to be valid and always have been valid, came into effect — First respondent informed applicant and third respondent that Fair Work Australia regarded itself as obliged by s 26A of the Act to treat third respondent as registered organisation — Third respondent withdrew application to AIRC to alter rules — Whether s 26A of the Act validates registration of third respondent when such registration previously quashed by FCAFC prior to commencement of s 26A — Whether s 26A invalid as impermissible usurpation of, or interference with, judicial power of Commonwealth.
Documents
17/01/2011 Application for special leave to appeal
17/01/2011 Notice of constitutional matter (Applicant)
02/09/2011 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne)
30/09/2011 Written submissions (Applicant)
30/09/2011 Chronology (Applicant)
21/10/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
28/10/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
28/10/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
28/10/2011 Reply
04/11/2011 Reply to interveners (Appellant)
31/01/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
04/05/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Aytugrul v. The Queen
Case No.
S315/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
3/12/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Criminal Appeal) (McClellan CJ, Simpson and Fullerton JJ)
Catchwords
Criminal law — Identification evidence — DNA evidence — Admissibility — Discretion to admit or exclude evidence — Applicant convicted of murder of former partner — Evidence led by prosecution at trial that a hair found on deceased's thumbnail consistent with applicant's mitochondrial DNA profile — Prosecution expert gave evidence that 99.9 per cent of people in general population would not have a profile matching the hair ("statistical evidence") — Expert's statistical evidence did not take ethnicity into account — Different prosecution witness gave evidence that approximately two per cent of persons of applicant's ethnicity would be expected to share DNA profile found in the hair — Whether trial judge ought to have refused to admit the statistical evidence — Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 135 and 137.
Documents
02/09/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
15/09/2011 Notice of appeal
30/09/2011 Written submissions (Appellant)
30/09/2011 Chronology (Appellant)
21/10/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
28/10/2011 Reply
08/12/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
18/04/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Australian Native Landscapes Pty Ltd v. Minogue and Anor
Case No.
S277/2010
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
29/10/2010 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal)
(Allsop P, Beazley and McColl JJA)
Catchwords
Torts — Damages — Contribution between tortfeasors — Applicant and first respondent found liable in action for personal injuries pursuant to Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) ("MAC Act") — First respondent deemed to be applicant's agent by s 112 of MAC Act — Second respondent, employer of plaintiff and first respondent, found not liable because case pleaded and conducted against it not within MAC Act — Damages reduced by 50 per cent pursuant to s 151Z(2) of Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) ("WC Act") — Applicant sought contribution and indemnity from respondents pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) ("LRMP Act") — Primary judge held s 5(1)(c) of LRMP Act did not apply because second respondent not liable, and first respondent liable as applicant's agent rather than second respondent's agent — Court of Appeal held applicant prevented from seeking contribution because plaintiff in personal injury action unable to recover from second respondent under WC Act, and applicant's s 5(1)(c) claim raised issue not previously raised — Whether respondents' negligence able to be considered in applicant's proceeding for contribution under s 5(1)(c) of LRMP Act — Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to allow applicant's claims against respondents — Effect of s 151E of WC Act — Application of James Hardie & Co v Seltsam (1998) 196 CLR 53.
Documents
07/12/2010 Application for special leave to appeal (Applicant)
02/09/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
12/10/2011 Notice of discontinuance
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd and Ors v. iiNet Limited
Case No.
S288/2011
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
24/02/2011 Federal Court of Australia (Emmett, Jagot and Nicholas JJ)
[2011] FCAFC 23
Catchwords
Intellectual property — Copyright — Infringement — Authorisation — Applicants owners and exclusive licensees of copyright in commercially-released motion pictures — Respondent an internet service provider whose agreements with customers contained terms requiring customers to comply with all laws and reasonable directions by respondent as well as obligation not to use service to infringe copyright — Respondent availed of legal and technical capacity to issue warnings to customers whose services being used to infringe copyright — Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, on behalf of applicants, served copyright infringement notices on respondent, alleging users of respondent's network infringing copyright in cinematographic films by making them available online — Respondent took no action in response to notices — Whether respondent authorised infringements of applicants' copyright by users of respondent's internet services — Whether proper account taken of matters listed in s 101(1A) of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) — Whether respondent had sufficient knowledge of infringing acts to support finding of authorisation — Whether applicants required to present respondent with "unequivocal and cogent evidence" of infringing acts and undertaking to reimburse and indemnify respondent — Application of principles in University of New South Wales v Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1 — Whether respondent's conduct constituted "countenancing" of infringing acts.
Words and phrases — "authorise", "copyright", "countenance", "infringe", "unequivocal and cogent evidence".
Documents
12/08/2011 Hearing (SLA, Sydney)
26/08/2011 Notice of appeal
09/09/2011 Written submissions (Appellants)
09/09/2011 Chronology (Appellants)
16/09/2011 Written submissions (APRA seeking leave to intervene)
16/09/2011 Written submissions (ARIA seeking leave to intervene)
16/09/2011 Written submissions (MEAA & SAG seeking leave to intervene)
05/10/2011 Written submissions (Respondent)
07/10/2011 Written submissions (APF seeking leave to intervene)
10/10/2011 Amended written submissions (Respondent)
12/10/2011 Written submissions (ADA seeking leave to intervene)
12/10/2011 Written submissions (CA seeking leave to intervene)
21/10/2011 Reply and response to Notice of Contention (Appellant)
04/11/2011 Reply on Notice of Contention (Respondent)
30/11/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
30/11/2011 Judgment (Leave to intervene)
01/12/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
02/12/2011 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
20/04/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)