Palmanova Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth of Australia
Case No.
S147/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
05/07/2024 Federal Court of Australia (Banks-Smith, Abraham and Downes JJ)
Catchwords
Statutes – construction – Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”) – where Bolivian artefact purchased by applicant from US gallery in 2020 seized upon entry into Australia under Act – whether artefact exported from Bolivia to US prior to 1960 – where artefact seized upon entry into Australia under s 14 of Act – whether artefact liable for forfeiture – temporal operation of Act - whether majority of Full Federal Court erred in interpretation of s 14(1) of Act by concluding Act not limited in application to protected object of foreign country exported from that country after date of commencement of Act (1 July 1987) – whether majority erred in concluding unnecessary to consider extrinsic material in construction of s 14.
Documents*
07/11/2024 Determination
21/11/2024 Notice of appeal
10/01/2025 Written submissions (Appellant)
09/01/2025 Chronology (Appellant)
30/01/2025 Written submissions (Respondent)
13/02/2025 Reply
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
Kain v. R&B Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the R&B Pension Fund & Ors
Ernst & Young (a Firm) ABN 75 288 172 749 v. R&B Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the R&B Pension Fund & Ors
Shand v. R&B Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the R&B Pension Fund & Ors
Case No.
S146/2024, S144/2024, S143/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
5/07/2024 Federal Court of Australia (Murphy, Beach, Lee JJ)
Catchwords
Representative proceedings – common fund orders – open class securities action – application for approval of notice to group members prior to opt-out – where question reserved for Full Federal Court under s 25(6) of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) whether under Pt IVA of Act Court has power upon settlement or judgment of representative proceeding to make common fund order for distribution of funds to solicitor otherwise than as payment for costs and disbursements incurred in conduct of proceeding – whether Full Court erred in answer question in affirmative.
Documents*
07/11/2024 Determination
12/11/2024 Notice of appeal - S143/2024
14/11/2024 Notice of appeal - S144/2024
14/11/2024 Notice of appeal - S146/2024
13/12/2024 Written submissions (Appellant - S146/2024)
13/12/2024 Chronology (Appellant - S146/2024)
09/01/2025 Written submissions (Fourth Respondent - S146/2024)
09/01/2025 Written submissions (Fifth Respondent - S146/2024)
05/02/2025 Amended written submissions (First and Second Respondents - S146/2024)
11/02/2025 Reply (Appellant - S146/2024)
11/02/2025 Reply (Fourth Respondent - S146/2024)
11/02/2025 Reply (Fifth Respondent - S146/2024)
11/02/2025 Written submissions (Association of Litigation Funders of Australia, seeking leave to intervene)
04/03/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
04/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (Appellant - S146/2024)
04/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (First and Second Respondents - S146/2024)
04/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (Fourth Respondent - S146/2024)
04/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (Fifth Respondent - S146/2024)
04/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (Association of Litigation Funders of Australia, seeking leave to intervene)
05/03/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
Commissioner of Taxation v. PepsiCo, Inc.
Commissioner of Taxation v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.
Commissioner of Taxation v. PepsiCo, Inc.
Commissioner of Taxation v. PepsiCo, Inc.
Commissioner of Taxation v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.
Commissioner of Taxation v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc
Case No.
M98/2024, M99/2024, M100/2024, M101/2024, M102/2024, M103/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
25/06/2024 Federal Court of Australia (Perram, Colvin, Jackman JJ)
Catchwords
Taxation – royalty withholding tax – diverted profits tax – where non-resident taxpayer entered into exclusive bottling agreements (“EBAs”) with Australian company (SAPL) for bottling and sale of PepsiCo branded beverages – where EBAs included licence of taxpayers’ trademarks and other intellectual property but did not provide for royalty – whether Full Federal Court ought to have found payments made under EBAs included “royalty” paid “as consideration for” use of or right to use intellectual property licensed to SAPL within meaning of s 6(1) Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (“ITAA”) – whether Full Court ought to have found royalty component of EBA was income “derived” by and “paid to” PepsiCo under s 128(2B) ITAA and thereby withholding tax payable under s 128B(5A) – whether if no royalty withholding tax payable Full Court ought to have found liability for diverted profits tax for purposes of ss 177J and 177P ITAA.
Documents*
07/11/2024 Determination (Commissioner of Taxation v. PepsiCo Inc)
07/11/2024 Determination (Commissioner of Taxation v. Stokely-Van Camp Inc)
07/11/2024 Determination (Commissioner of Taxation v. PepsiCo Inc)
07/11/2024 Determination (Commissioner of Taxation v. PepsiCo Inc)
07/11/2024 Determination (Commissioner of Taxation v. Stokely-Van Camp Inc)
07/11/2024 Determination (Commissioner of Taxation v. Stokely-Van Camp Inc)
20/11/2024 Notice of appeal (each matter)
09/01/2025 Written submissions (Appellant)
09/01/2025 Chronology (Appellant)
30/01/2025 Written submissions (Respondents)
13/02/2025 Reply
02/04/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
02/04/2025 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
02/04/2025 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
03/04/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
Valuer-General Victoria v. WSTI Properties 490 SKR Pty Ltd
Case No.
M96/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
4/07/2024 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Emerton P, Kennedy and Lyons JJA)
Catchwords
Land valuation – assessment of land value under Valuation of Land Act 1960 (Vic) – where respondent owner of land subject to heritage-related planning restrictions – where house built in 1897 on land – where respondent successfully objected to valuations in Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – where valuation required assumption that improvements had not been made – where improvements defined in s 2(1) of Valuation of Land Act as “all work actually done or material used on and for the benefit of the land, but only in so far as the effect of the work done or material used increases the value of the land” – proper time for assessment of improvements – whether Court of Appeal erred in construing defining of “improvement” as requiring that effect of work done or material used increased value of land at time that work actually done or material used.
Documents*
07/11/2024 Determination
19/11/2024 Notice of appeal
23/12/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
23/12/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
20/01/2025 Written submissions (Respondent)
10/02/2025 Reply
07/03/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
06/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
06/03/2025 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
The King v. Ryan Churchill (a pseudonym)
Case No.
M94/2024
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/06/2024 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Beach, Taylor, and Orr JJA)
Catchwords
Criminal law – evidence – hearsay – Evidence Act 1996 (Vic) – where appellant convicted of two counts of incest - evidence given of complainant’s representation to another person of having been sexually assaulted – where evidence led that complainant distressed when making representation – where Court of Appeal allowed appeal and held trial judge should have warned jury that evidence of such distress “generally carried little weight” – whether Court of Appeal erred in holding such direction should have been given – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding substantial miscarriage of justice because trial judge did not specifically direct jury they could not use evidence of distress unless first finding link between distress and alleged offending.
Documents*
07/11/2024 Determination
14/11/2024 Notice of appeal
09/12/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)
09/12/2024 Chronology (Appellant)
09/01/2025 Written submissions (Respondent)
16/01/2025 Reply
14/02/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
14/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
14/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
02/04/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)