UD v. The Queen
Case No.
C7/2020
Case Information
Lower Court
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Powers of courts – Powers of Legislative Assembly of Australian Capital Territory – Trial by jury – Where applicant charged with offences against Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) – Where judge of ACT Supreme Court ordered that applicant’s trial be heard by judge alone pursuant to s 68BA of Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) – Whether s 68BA invalid because incompatible with constitutional limitation derived from Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51 – Whether s 68BA beyond power of ACT Legislative Assembly under s 22 of Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth) – Whether s 68BA beyond power of ACT Legislative Assembly by reason of s 48A of Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth) – Whether s 68BA invalid by reason of s 80 of Constitution
Documents*
29/04/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne v/link Canberra)
30/04/2020 Order
05/05/2020 Cause Removed
11/05/2020 Written submissions (Applicant)
11/05/2020 Chronology (Applicant)
11/05/2020 Submitting appearance (Respondent)
25/05/2020 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory intervening)
28/05/2020 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne link to Canberra)
28/05/2020 Order
12/06/2020 Reply
30/06/2020 Hearing (Full Court) - VACATED
*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only.
AUS17 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Case No.
S71/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
16/10/2019 Federal Court of Australia (Logan J)
Catchwords
Migration law –Migration Act 1958(Cth) s 473DD –Circumstances in which Immigration Assessment Authority(“IAA”)can consider new information when reviewing a fast track reviewable decision–Where appellant applied for Safe Haven Enterprise Visa and application refused by Minister’s delegate–Where appellant’s representative supplied IAA with further materials including letter of support by third party written after date of delegate’s decision–Where IAA considered that new information in letter could have been provided to the delegate, and so concluded, on basis of s 473DD(b)(i),that exceptional circumstances did not exist such that it could consider new information in letter –Whether failure to satisfy condition in s 473DD(b)(i) sufficient basis for IAAto conclude exceptional circumstances did not exist within meaning of s 473DD(a)where s 473DD(b)(ii) satisfied
Documents
24/04/2020 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane v/link Sydney)
08/05/2020 Notice of appeal
12/06/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
12/06/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
10/07/2020 Written submissions (Respondents)
31/07/2020 Reply
04/09/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
04/09/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
04/09/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondents)
14/10/2020 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Westpac Securities Administration Ltd & Anor v. Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Case No.
S69/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
28/10/2019; 12/11/2019 Federal Court of Australia (Allsop Cj, Jagot and O’Bryan JJ)
Catchwords
Corporations–Financial product advice –Corporations Act 2001(Cth) s 766B(3)(b) –Distinction between personal advice and general advice –Where bank customers received letters or emails highlighting benefits of consolidating superannuation and offering to conduct free search to identify superannuation accounts that customers may have held with other providers –Where representative of bank then called customers, providing them with any relevant search results and offering to roll over superannuation accounts into their account with bank –Where Full Court of Federal Court held that bank provided financial product advice (within meaning of s 766B(1) of Corporations Act) to customers –Whether that financial product advice was personal advice –Whether objective limb of definition of “personal advice” in s 766B(3)(b) depends on whether reasonable person might expect that advice provider had in fact considered recipient’s personal circumstances or that advice provider should have considered those circumstances –Whether consideration of recipient’s personal circumstances (within meaning of s 766B(3)(b)) requires advice provider to engage with and evaluate those circumstances in formulating advice –Extent to which a recipient’s “objectives, financial situation and needs” must be considered by advice provider for advice to be personal advice.
Documents
24/04/2020 Hearing (SLA, Brisbane v/link Sydney)
07/05/2020 Notice of appeal
12/06/2020 Written submissions (Appellants)
12/06/2020 Chronology (Appellants)
10/07/2020 Written submissions (Respondent)
31/07/2020 Reply
07/10/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/10/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellants)
07/10/2020 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
08/10/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
03/02/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
09/03/2021 Hearing (Single Justice, Melbourne V/links)
Wigmans v. AMP Limited & Ors
Case No.
S67/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
08/10/219 Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) (Bell P, Macfarlan JA, Meagher JA, Payne JA, White JA)
Catchwords
Civil procedure –Representative proceedings–Where multiple representative proceedings on foot against respondent in single forum–Where each plaintiff sought stay of proceedings commenced by other plaintiffs –Where primary judge applied multifactorial analysis to determine which proceeding should progress –Where NSW Court of Appeal dismissed appeal from primary judge’s decision –Whether Pt 10 of Civil Procedure Act 2005(NSW) authorised approach taken by primary judge –Whether permissible for court faced with multiple open class actions conducted on basis of different funding models and with different incentives, disincentives and risk profiles to assume, without findings in evidence, that different proceedings equally likely to achieve possible settlement or judgment outcome within range of possible outcomes.
Documents
17/04/2020 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne v/link Sydney)
01/05/2020 Notice of appeal
05/06/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
05/06/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
03/07/2020 Written submissions (First Respondent)
07/07/2020 Written submissions (Second and Third Respondents)
24/07/2020 Reply
10/11/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
10/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
10/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)
10/11/2020 Outline of oral argument (Second and Third Respondents)
10/03/2021 Judgment (Judgment summary)
DVO16 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Case No.
S66/2020
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
09/09/2019 Federal Court of Australia (Greenwood, Flick and Stewart JJ)
Catchwords
Migration law –Fast track review process –Migration Act 1958(Cth) Pt 7AA –Where appellant applied for temporary protection visa –Where Minister’s delegate conducted interview with appellant –Where translation errors and omissions occurred in interview –Where Minister’s delegate refused application –Where, relying on material obtained in interview, Immigration Assessment Authority(“IAA”) reviewed delegate’s decision –Where IAA affirmed delegate’s decision –Whether, in circumstances where material translation error occurred in delegate’s interview and IAA relies on material obtained in interview in reviewing delegate’s decision under Pt 7AA, IAA needs to have actual or constructive knowledge of translation error for jurisdictional error to arise.
Documents
17/04/2020 Hearing (SLA, Melbourne v/link Sydney)
01/05/2020 Notice of appeal
05/06/2020 Written submissions (Appellant)
05/06/2020 Chronology (Appellant)
03/07/2020 Written submissions (Respondent)
24/07/2020 Reply
09/10/2020 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) VACATED
10/02/2021 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/02/2021 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
10/02/2021 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
14/04/2021 Judgment (Judgment Summary)