Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 12 October 2010 37 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the High Court of Australia Library

[2010] HCAB 9 (12 October 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 September 2010 sittings.

Dickson v The Queen

M11/2009 and M102/2010: [2010] HCA 30.

Judgment delivered: 22 September 2010.

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

Catchwords:

Constitutional law — Inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws — Direct inconsistency — Appellant convicted under State law of conspiracy to steal property belonging to a company — Commonwealth law made conspiracy to steal property belonging to Commonwealth an offence — Property stolen belonged to Commonwealth within meaning of Commonwealth law — Whether State law inconsistent with Commonwealth law — Whether State law altered, impaired or detracted from operation of Commonwealth law — Discussion of indirect inconsistency and intention to cover the field.
Words and phrases — “conspiracy”.

Appealed from Vic SC (CA): [2008] VSCA 271; (2008) 192 A Crim R 121.

Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Ltd

M69/2009: [2010] HCA 31.

Judgment delivered: 29 September 2010.

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

Catchwords:

Trade practices — Misleading or deceptive conduct — Non-disclosure — Representation by supply of certificate of insurance and/or non-disclosure of nature of insurance — Whether provision of certificate by insurance broker to experienced premium lender misrepresented cancellability of underlying policy — Whether failure of broker to inform lender in terms that policy was non-cancellable constituted misleading or deceptive conduct.
Appeal — Powers of appellate court — Review of trial judge's findings of fact — Where finding allegedly based on mistaken understanding of agreed fact and inferences arising from it — Whether finding “glaringly improbable” or contrary to “compelling inferences”.
Practice and procedure — Filing of submissions — Respondent filed submissions after hearing outside terms of leave granted — Whether permissible to file supplementary written submissions after hearing without leave.
Words and phrases — “misleading or deceptive conduct”.

Appealed from Vic SC (CA): [2009] VSCA 117.

Kostas & Anor v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd t/as Home Owners Warranty & Anor

S84/2010: [2010] HCA 32.

Judgment delivered: 29 September 2010.

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

Catchwords:

Courts — Appeals — Jurisdiction and powers — Section 67(1) of Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (NSW) provided for appeal from Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal to Supreme Court “[i]f, in respect of any proceedings, the Tribunal decides a question with respect to a matter of law” — Appellants purported to terminate building contract because of builder's…

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 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dickson v The Queen was heard by the High Court of Australia during the September 2010 sittings. The central issue was whether a State law was inconsistent with a Commonwealth law in relation to conspiracy to steal property. The court examined the nature of the inconsistency between the two laws, whether it was direct or indirect, and if the State law altered, impaired or detracted from the operation of the Commonwealth law. The court also discussed the intention to cover the field and the meaning of "conspiracy" in the context of the case. The High Court found that the State law was inconsistent with the Commonwealth law, as it altered, impaired or detracted from the operation of the Commonwealth law. This decision has significant implications for the interaction between State and Commonwealth laws in Australia.

In Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Ltd, the High Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the provision of a certificate of insurance by an insurance broker to an experienced premium lender constituted misleading or deceptive conduct. The case also raised questions about the non-disclosure of the nature of the insurance and the powers of an appellate court in reviewing trial judge's findings of fact. The court considered whether the finding of the trial judge was "glaringly improbable" or contrary to "compelling inferences". Additionally, the case examined the issue of whether it was permissible to file supplementary written submissions after the hearing without leave. The High Court held that the provision of the certificate did not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct and that the trial judge's findings were not "glaringly improbable" or contrary to "compelling inferences".

In Kostas & Anor v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd t/as Home Owners Warranty & Anor, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court in relation to appeals from the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. The central issue was whether a "question with respect to a matter of law" had been decided by the Tribunal, and if so, whether it could be raised on appeal to the Supreme Court. The court also considered the concept of a "no evidence ground" and its relation to questions of law. The High Court held that the question decided by the Tribunal could be raised on appeal to the Supreme Court, as it was a question with respect to a matter of law. This decision clarifies the scope of appeals from the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal to the Supreme Court in New South Wales.

In Travelex Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation, the High Court of Australia examined whether a supply of foreign currency sold on the departures side of a customs barrier at an Australian international airport was "GST-free" under the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth). The case also raised questions about whether the supply was an input taxed financial supply or a supply in relation to rights. The court considered the definition of "financial supply" and "supply in relation to rights" in the context of the case. The High Court held that the supply of foreign currency was not "GST-free" and that it was an input taxed financial supply. This decision has implications for the taxation of financial supplies in Australia.

Orders