R Lawyers v. Mr Daily & Anor
Case No.
Case no A8/2025
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/10/2024 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Division (Aldridge, Tree and Campton JJ)
Catchwords
Contract law – Negligence – Where parties to a marriage entered into a binding financial agreement – Where the purpose of the agreement was to agree in advance how the parties’ existing and after-acquired property would be divided in the event of their later separation – Where advice of solicitors for one party in relation to the preparation and negotiation of agreement was inadequate – Where, following the parties’ separation, the financial agreement was found to be unenforceable – Whether the party’s contract claim against former solicitors was statute barred – Time when a negligently drawn contract first sees damage sustained – Whether loss and damage was sustained by the party upon entry into the defective contract or a later date – Where primary judge found that no loss or damage was sustained by the party until, at the earliest, the date of separation, such that the party’s claim against his former solicitors was not statute barred – Where through a solicitor’s negligence in the drafting and preparation of a contract a client fails to secure contractual protection against a contingent loss or liability – Whether actionable damage is sustained immediately at the time of the entry into the contract or only upon the occurrence of the contingency.
Documents*
06/03/2025 Determination
20/03/2025 Notice of appeal
17/04/2025 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/04/2025 Chronology (Appellant)
08/05/2025 Written submissions (Respondent)
15/05/2025 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Michael Stewart by his litigation guardian Carol Schwarzman v. Metro North Hospital and Health Service (ABN 184 996 277 942)
Case No.
Case no B10/2025
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
15/11/2024 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Mullins P, Boddice JA and Ryan J)
Catchwords
Torts - Assessment of damages– Cost of future care – Location – Where the appellant suffered personal injuries arising from his treatment as a patient at a hospital operated by the respondent – Where, at trial, the respondent admitted duty, breach and causation – Where the assessment of damages for the injuries was at issue – Where the primary judge awarded damages in the sum of $2,190,505.48, before management fees to the appellant – Where the basis of the primary judge’s award of damages was to provide enhanced care and therapy while the appellant resided at a care facility – Where the appellant sought significantly higher damages, on the basis the appellant has communicated a desire to live independently, rather than in a care facility – Whether the primary judge erred in assessing damages.
Documents*
06/03/2025 Determination
20/03/2025 Notice of appeal
17/04/2025 Written submissions (Appellant)
17/04/2025 Chronology (Appellant)
08/05/2025 Written submissions (Respondent)
15/05/2025 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Farshchi v. The King
Case No.
Case no M20/2025
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
14/10/2024 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Priest, Niall and Taylor JJA)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Inconsistency – Criminal law – Appeal – Conviction – Where appellant charged with causing a person to remain in forced labour and conducting a business involving forced labour – Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – ss 270.6A(1) and (2) – Trial – Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) – s 64(1)(e) – Where trial judge directed the jury as to the meaning of the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” – Whether trial judge erred by directing the jury that a reasonable doubt is not an unrealistic possibility – Whether direction diminishes the criminal standard of proof – Whether direction inconsistent with s 13.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth) and s 80 of the Constitution – Whether s 64(1)(e) is thereby not picked up by s 68(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to apply to trials conducted in federal jurisdiction.
Documents*
06/03/2025 Determination
27/03/2025 Notice of appeal
24/04/2025 Written submissions (Appellant)
24/04/2025 Chronology (Appellant)
22/05/2025 Written submissions (Respondent)
12/06/2025 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Farmer v. Minister for Home Affairs & Anor
Case No.
S160/2024
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Migration law – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and is not a citizen or resident of Australia – Where the plaintiff is an internationally recognised political commentator – Where the plaintiff arranged to conduct a speaking tour in Australia – Where the plaintiff applied for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa for her proposed travel to Australia – Where the Minister for Home Affairs decided to refuse to grant the plaintiff the visa, relying on s 501(6)(d)(iv) of the Act in making the decision – Where the Minister reasonably suspects that the plaintiff does not pass the character test and that it is in the national interest to refuse to grant the plaintiff a visa – Validity of s 501(6)(d)(iv) – Whether invalid on the ground that it infringes the implied freedom of political communication – Whether the Minister adopted an incorrect construction of s 501(6)(d)(iv).
Documents*
12/02/2025 Amended application for Constitutional or other writ
18/02/2025 Notice of constitutional matter
13/03/2025 Special Case
13/03/2025 Order referring special case to the Full Court
20/03/2025 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
20/03/2025 Chronology (Plaintiff)
10/04/2025 Written submissions (First and Second Defendants)
22/04/2025 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Kain v R&B Investments; Ernst & Young v R&B Investments; Shand v R&B Investments
Date: 05 March 2025
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 43m
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
Terms of use
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.