Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 14 November 2011 53 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the Legal Research Officer,
High Court of Australia Library

[2011] HCAB 09 (14 November 2011)

A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, refused special leave to appeal and not proceeding or vacated

1: Cases Handed Down
2: Cases Reserved
3: Original Jurisdiction
4: Special Leave Granted
5: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
6: Special Leave Refused

Summary of New Entries

1: Cases Handed Down

Case	Title
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Poniatowska	Criminal Law
Hargraves v The Queen; Stoten v The Queen	Criminal Law

2: Cases Reserved

Case

Title

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Shafron;
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Terry;
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar;
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Brown;
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Gillfillan;
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Koffel;
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v O'Brien;
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Willcox;
Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Corporations Law

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
There are no new matters ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court.

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd & Anor v Australian Competition Tribunal & Ors; The National Competition Council v Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd & Ors; The National Competition Council v Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd & Ors	Competition Law
International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd v Chameleon Mining NL (Receivers & Managers Appointed) & Ors	Corporations Law
Baker v The Queen	Criminal Law
Clodumar v Nauru Lands Committee[*]	Property Law

[*]Appeal as of right from Supreme Court of Nauru pursuant to Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 (Cth).

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the October 2011 sittings.

Criminal Law

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Poniatowska

A20/2010: [2011] HCA 43.

Judgment delivered: 26 October 2011.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Heydon, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Physical element of offence — Omission — Respondent convicted of multiple charges of obtaining financial advantage from Commonwealth entity contrary to s 135.2(1) of Criminal Code (Cth) ("Code") — Respondent failed to advise Centrelink of receipt of payments of commission from employer — Whether omission to perform act that person not under legal obligation to perform can be physical element of offence created by s 135.2(1) of Code — Whether s 4.3 of Code gave expression to common law principle that criminal liability does not attach to omission unless it is omission to perform act that person is under legal obligation to perform.
Words and phrases — "engages in conduct", "makes it so", "obtains a financial advantage", "omission".

Appealed from SA SC (FC): (2010) SASR 578; (2010) 240 FLR 466; (2010) 271 FLR 610; [2010] SASCFC 19; [2010] ALMD 7469.

Hargraves v The Queen; Stoten v The Queen

B28/2011; B24/2011: [2011]…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read High Court Bulletin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] HCAB 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Poniatowska was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent was convicted of multiple charges of obtaining financial advantage from the Commonwealth entity contrary to section 135.2(1) of the Criminal Code. The central issue was whether an omission to perform an act that a person is not under a legal obligation to perform can be the physical element of an offence. The Court concluded that while omission to perform an act that a person is under a legal obligation to perform can be the physical element of an offence, an omission to perform an act that a person is not under a legal obligation to perform cannot be the physical element of an offence.

In the case of Hargraves v The Queen; Stoten v The Queen, the appellants were convicted of charges arising from a tax avoidance scheme. The issue was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the evaluation of evidence caused a miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the directions did not cause a miscarriage of justice as they were in line with the applicable principles for directions about the evaluation of evidence.

In the case of Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal, the central issue was whether the criterion for declaration of service imposed a test of private profitability or a test applying economic principles taking into account natural monopoly characteristics. The Court held that the criterion imposed a test of economic principles taking into account natural monopoly characteristics. The Court further held that the public interest criterion required or permitted an inquiry into the likely net balance of social costs and benefits if a declaration was made.

In the case of International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd v Chameleon Mining NL, the issue was whether the funding deed was a financial product within the meaning of the Corporations Act. The Court concluded that the funding deed was not a financial product as it was not a facility through which, or through acquisition of which, a person managed financial risk.

In the case of Fortescue Metals Group Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the issue was whether the announcements made by the company and its CEO were misleading or deceptive or likely to be misleading or deceptive. The Court held that the announcements were not misleading or deceptive as they were statements of the company's honest or honest and reasonable belief as to the terms and effect of the framework agreements rather than statements that warranted or guaranteed their truth.

Orders