Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 19 November 2010 34 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the High Court of Australia Library

[2010] HCAB 11 (19 November 2010)

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

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the November 2010 sittings.

Selected Seeds Pty Ltd v QBEMM Pty Ltd & Ors

B16/2010: [2010] HCA 37.

Judgment delivered: 3 November 2010.

Coram: French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Insurance — Product liability insurance — Insurance policy — Indemnity — Exclusion clause — Appellant seed merchant sold contaminated seed — Planting of seed by third party resulted in damage to property — Exclusion of liability caused by or arising from “the failure of any Product to correctly fulfil its intended use or function” — Proper construction of exclusion clause — Whether liability for damage arose out of failure of product to fulfil its intended use or function — Distinction between product failing to fulfil intended use or function and causing positive harm.
Words and phrases — “intended use or function”.

Appealed from Qld SC (CA): [2009] QCA 286; (2009) 15 ANZ Ins Cas ¶61-821.

The Queen v Nguyen

M23/2010: [2010] HCA 38.

Judgment delivered: 3 November 2010.

Coram: Hayne, Heydon , Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Criminal law — Appeal — Verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence — Respondent found guilty by jury of murder and attempted murder by complicity — Court of Appeal quashed convictions on ground that verdicts “unsafe and unsatisfactory” in the sense that verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence — Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory — Whether reasonably open to jury on the whole of the evidence to convict respondent of murder and attempted murder — Task of appellate court.
Criminal law — Murder — Practice and procedure — Directions to jury — Whether alternative verdict of manslaughter sufficiently left to jury — Whether reasonably open to jury to return alternative verdict of manslaughter — Whether failure sufficiently to leave alternative verdict to jury constituted a wrong decision on a question of law — Whether no substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred.
Words and phrases — “unsafe and unsatisfactory”, “substantial miscarriage of justice”.

Appealed from Vic SC (CA): [2010] VSCA 23.

State of South Australia v Totani & Anor

A1/2010: [2010] HCA 39.

Judgment delivered: 11 November 2010.

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

Catchwords:

Constitutional law (Cth) — Judicial power of Commonwealth — Constitution, Ch III — Vesting of federal jurisdiction in State courts — Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 (SA) (“Act”) —…

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: [2010] HCAB 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court was called upon to decide the question of whether the exclusion of liability in an insurance policy applied to the claim for damages caused by the contaminated seed sold by the appellant, Selected Seeds Pty Ltd. The court held that the exclusion of liability in the insurance policy did not apply to the claim for damages caused by the contaminated seed sold by the appellant. The court found that the exclusion of liability in the insurance policy did not apply to the claim for damages caused by the contaminated seed sold by the appellant, Selected Seeds Pty Ltd. The court found that the exclusion of liability in the insurance policy was not triggered by the failure of the product to correctly fulfil its intended use or function. The court found that the exclusion of liability in the insurance policy was triggered by the positive harm caused by the contaminated seed, which was not the intended use or function of the product. The court found that the exclusion of liability in the insurance policy was not triggered by the failure of the product to correctly fulfil its intended use or function, which was to be a healthy seed. The court found that the exclusion of liability in the insurance policy was triggered by the positive harm caused by the contaminated seed, which was not the intended use or function of the product. The court found that the exclusion of liability in the insurance policy was not triggered by the failure of the product to correctly fulfil its intended use or function, which was to be a healthy seed. The court held that the exclusion of liability in the insurance policy did not apply to the claim for damages caused by the contaminated seed sold by the appellant, Selected Seeds Pty Ltd. The court held that the exclusion of liability in the insurance policy was triggered by the positive harm caused by the contaminated seed, which was not the intended use or function of the product.

Orders