Sunland Group Limited & Anor v. Gold Coast City Council
Case No.
B64/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
01/05/2020 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Sofronoff P, Philippides and McMurdo JJA)
Catchwords
Administrative law – Planning and environment – Development approvals – Where in 2015 second applicant bought parcel of undeveloped land which carried with it benefit of preliminary development approval granted in 2007 – Where preliminary approval approved multi-stage residential development subject to 56 conditions – Where some conditions provided for payment of infrastructure contributions to respondent – Where preliminary approval made under Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld) – Where Integrated Planning Act replaced by other legislation – Whether conditions concerning infrastructure contributions, properly construed, should be read as binding on applicant or landowner, or merely as statements as to scope of future possible conditions – Whether, in construction of conditions, contra proferentem rule applies so that ambiguities are to be resolved against approving authority.
Documents*
13/10/2020 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne with video-connection to Brisbane)
22/10/2020 Notice of appeal
01/12/2020 Written submissions (Appellants)
01/12/2020 Chronology (Appellants)
14/01/2021 Written submissions - amended (Respondent)
02/02/2021 Reply
09/04/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
09/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
09/04/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
05/08/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/11/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Davidson v. The Queen
Case No.
B6/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/06/2019 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Gotterson and McMurdo JJA and Boddice J)
Catchwords
Evidence – Similar fact evidence – Common law approach – Where applicant was massage therapist – Where applicant charged with counts of sexual assault and rape committed against ten complainant clients – Where prosecution sought to lead similar fact evidence – Where applicant unsuccessfully sought to have separate trials ordered on rape counts on basis that evidence relied upon as similar fact evidence not cross-admissible on other counts – Where following jury trial, applicant convicted of 18 counts of sexual assault and one count of rape – Whether joint trial of sexual assault and rape counts occasioned miscarriage of justice – Whether majority of Court of Appeal effectively lowered threshold for admission of similar fact evidence at common law.
Documents*
11/09/2020 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane video-connect Melbourne)
30/10/2020 Written submissions (Applicant)
30/10/2020 Chronology (Applicant)
27/11/2020 Written submissions (Respondent)
18/12/2020 Reply
02/02/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
(Including pronouncement of orders)
01/02/2021 Outline of oral argument (Applicant)
02/02/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
Gerner & Anor v. The State of Victoria
Case No.
M104/2020
Case Information
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Validity of legislative instruments – Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) (“Act”), sub-ss 200(1)(b), (d) – Directions made under sub-ss 200(1)(b), (d) – Where Directions made under Act purported to authorise lockdown in Victoria – Where first plaintiff is resident of Victoria restrained from moving freely within that State by Directions – Where second plaintiff is restaurant business in Victoria owned and managed by first plaintiff – Where first plaintiff and employees and customers of second plaintiff have been restricted from visiting second plaintiff’s premises, with adverse consequences for second plaintiff’s business – Whether sub-ss 200(1)(b), (d) and/or Directions made under those provisions are invalid because they impermissibly burden an implied freedom of movement said to be contained in the Constitution (Cth).
Documents
12/10/2020 Writ of summons
12/10/2020 Notice of Constitutional Matter
16/10/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney by video-connection)
20/10/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane by video-connection)
20/10/2020 Amended writ of summons and statement of claim
21/10/2020 Demurrer
23/10/2020 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)
28/10/2020 Written submissions (Mr Ludlow seeking leave to intervene)
30/10/2020 Written submissions (Defendant)
30/10/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania intervening)
30/10/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
30/10/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
30/10/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
30/10/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory intervening)
02/11/2020 Reply
03/11/2020 Supplementary submissions (Plaintiffs)
03/11/2020 Supplementary submissions (Defendant)
06/11/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
(Including pronouncement of orders)
06/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Plaintiffs)
06/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Defendant)
06/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
06/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia intervening)
06/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
06/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the Northern Territory intervening)
10/12/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Victoria International Container Terminal Limited v. Lunt & Ors
Case No.
M96/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
18/03/20 Federal Court of Australia (Bromberg, Kerr and Wheelahan JJ)
Catchwords
Civil procedure – Dismissal of proceedings – Abuse of process – Where Fair Work Commission approved enterprise agreement – Where first respondent sought order in nature of certiorari to quash Commission’s approval – Where applicant applied for dismissal of that proceeding on basis it was abuse of process – Where applicant contended that Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (“CFMMEU”) was true moving party and proceeding had been brought in first respondent’s name to sidestep fact that CFMMEU’s predecessor union had acquiesced in enterprise agreement – Where primary judge acceded to applicant’s application and dismissed proceeding, finding CFMMEU was true moving party and first respondent was “front man” – Where appeal to Full Court of Federal Court allowed, and applicant’s application to have proceeding dismissed as abuse of process dismissed – Whether it would bring administration of justice into disrepute to allow CFMMEU, using “front man”, to challenge Commission’s approval of enterprise agreement while avoiding scrutiny of predecessor union’s acquiescence in that agreement.
Documents
11/09/2020 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane with video-connection Melbourne)
24/09/2020 Notice of appeal
30/10/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
30/10/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
27/11/2020 Written submissions (First Respondent)
18/12/2020 Reply
09/02/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
09/02/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
09/02/2021 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
07/04/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Matthew Ward Price as Executor of the Estate of Alan Leslie Price (deceased) & Ors v. Christine Claire Spoor as trustee & Ors
Case No.
B55/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/12/2019 Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) (Sofronoff P, Gotterson and Morrison JJA)
Catchwords
Contracts – Statutory limitation periods – Exclusion by agreement – Where in 1998, two mortgages executed by deceased Mr A Price and second applicant, and deceased Mr J Price and third applicant in favour of Law Partners Mortgages Pty Ltd (“LPM”), securing $320,000 loan advanced by LPM to mortgagors – Where respondents are trustees of pension fund successor in title as mortgagee to LPM – Where by 30 April 2001, only $50,000 of principal repaid and where no repayments made after that date – Where respondents commenced proceedings in 2017, claiming $4,014,969.22 and recovery of possession of mortgaged land – Where proceedings commenced outside of statutory bars in Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) – Where cl 24 of mortgages provided that “[t]he Mortgagor covenants with the Mortgage[e] that the provisions of all statutes now or hereafter in force whereby or in consequence whereof any o[r] all of the powers rights and remedies of the Mortgagee and the obligations of the Mortgagor hereunder may be curtailed, suspended, postponed, defeated or extinguished shall not apply hereto and are expressly excluded insofar as this can lawfully done” – Whether agreement not to plead or to rely on provisions of Limitation of Actions Act made at time of entry into loan contract and before accrual of cause of action unenforceable on public policy grounds – Whether, on proper construction of cl 24, applicants entitled to plead defence under Limitation of Actions Act – Whether operation of s 24 of Limitation of Actions Act can be excluded by agreement – Whether, on proper construction, terms of cl 24 are ambiguous – If cl 24 enforceable, whether breach of cl 24 could sound in any remedy other than claim for damages for breach of warranty.
Documents*
11/09/2020 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane with video-connection Melbourne)
24/09/2020 Notice of appeal
30/10/2020 Written submissions (Appellants)
30/10/2020 Chronology (Appellants)
30/11/2020 Written submissions (Respondents)
18/12/2020 Reply
04/03/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
03/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
03/03/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
23/06/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)