HCF v The Queen - [2023] HCATrans 43

[2023] HCATrans 043

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B50 of 2022

B e t w e e n -
HCF
Appellant

and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

GAGELER J
EDELMAN J
STEWARD J
GLEESON J
JAGOT J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 14 APRIL 2023, AT 9.45 AM

MR J.R. HUNTER, KC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend MR S.A. LYNCH for the appellant. (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)

MR C.W. HEATON, KC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned junior MR N.W. CRANE for the respondent. (instructed by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

GAGELER J: Thank you, Mr Heaton. Mr Hunter.

MR HUNTER: May it please. The question posed by this case does not turn on resolution of the question of whether a miscarriage of justice requires a demonstration that the error, or shortcoming, blemish – however it is described – might have made a difference. That is because, in this case, however one views the test, the misconduct – as I will call it – gave rise to what I have called in our outline a legitimate concern, but what might otherwise be described as a reasonable apprehension that this jury might not have conscientiously decided the case according to judicial direction.

We say it is not speculative to make that submission. We say that it follows as a matter of logic that a jury that is incapable of following directions about independent research and the need to report that sort of behaviour to the trial judge cannot be relied on to follow more complicated directions such as those that were given in this case.

JAGOT J: So, sorry, does that first proposition depend – the misconduct, is that confined, in your submission, to the failure of the one juror to follow directions not to do independent research and the other jurors to report that?

MR HUNTER: Yes.

JAGOT J: Or are you including within that misconduct the statements saying one juror – about what they could or could not decide? What are you focusing on in misconduct?

MR HUNTER: I am focusing on the conduct of the independent research and the collective failure to report that.

JAGOT J: Right. That is that misconduct. Okay.

EDELMAN J: And what about the bias issue? That is a separate issue, is it not?

MR HUNTER: That is a separate issue, and it does not necessarily collectively involve the jury in the sense that there was an unambiguous requirement to report a matter such as that as opposed to very clear instructions about the reporting.

EDELMAN J: But why, if one member of the jury is biased, does that need to affect any other member of the jury? If one judge on a multi‑member panel is affected by an apprehension of bias, then there is at least a strong argument that the whole of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading HCF v The Queen

Details

AGLC: HCF v The Queen [2023] HCATrans 43
Case: [2023] HCATrans 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal in *HCF v The Queen*. The case concerned the interpretation and application of provisions within the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) relating to the duties of directors and the consequences of contravening those duties. The central dispute involved allegations of breaches of director's duties by HCF, a company, and its officers.

The High Court was required to determine, among other things, whether the conduct of HCF and its officers constituted a contravention of their statutory obligations under the *Corporations Act*. Specifically, the Court had to consider the scope of the duties owed by directors and the appropriate legal framework for assessing liability for such contraventions, particularly in circumstances involving alleged misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to financial services.

The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of sections 180 and 1041H of the *Corporations Act*. It analysed the elements required to establish a contravention of the duty to exercise care and diligence and the prohibition against misleading or deceptive conduct in connection with financial products or services. The Court applied established principles of statutory interpretation and corporate law, considering the objective standard of care expected of directors and the broad reach of prohibitions against misleading conduct. The judgment clarified the interplay between these provisions and the circumstances in which a company and its officers can be held liable for breaches.

Orders