Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 4 May 2010 33 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the High Court of Australia Library

[2010] HCAB 4 (4 May 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 Dismissed

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the April 2010 sittings.
The High Court will not be appending catchwords to this section commencing with this Bulletin [2010] HCAB 4.

Health World Ltd v Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd

High Court of Australia: [2010] HCA 13.

Judgment delivered: 21 April 2010.

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

Appealed from FCA FC: [2009] FCAFC 14.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc v City of Swan & Ors; Lehman Brothers Asia Holdings Ltd (In Liquidation) v City of Swan & Ors

High Court of Australia: [2010] HCA 11.

Judgment delivered: 14 April 2010.

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

Appealed from FCA FC: [2009] FCAFC 130.

Tabet v Gett

High Court of Australia: [2010] HCA 12.

Judgment delivered: 21 April 2010.

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

Appealed from NSW SC (CA): [2009] NSWCA 76.

2: Cases Reserved

The following cases have been reserved or part heard for judgment by the High Court of Australia.

**** Indicates cases reserved or part heard for judgment since High Court Bulletin 3 [2010] HCAB 3.

Administrative Law

****Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice

M11/2010: [2010] HCATrans 91; [2010] HCATrans 93.

Date heard: 14-15 April 2010 — Judgment reserved.

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

Catchwords:

Administrative law — Freedom of information — Exempt documents — Appellant, convicted of murdering husband, unsuccessfully submitted Petition for Mercy to Attorney-General — Announcement of Attorney-General’s decision did not refer to all legal advice received — Appellant sought access to legal advice referred to — Section 50(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) (“FOI Act”) provides that on hearing an application for review the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“VCAT”) has power to grant access to exempt documents where the public interest requires that access should be granted — Whether legal advice not referred to was both relevantly and, as a matter of substance, materially different to the advice on which the decision was based — Whether, in applying s 50(4) of FOI Act, the Attorney-General fell under an obligation of public accountability by issuing a press release — Whether by issuing a press release the Attorney-General was seeking to give the fullest information as to the process that had been followed — Whether the Attorney-General was not giving the fullest information as to the process that…

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 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Health World Ltd appealed to the High Court from a decision of the Federal Court of Australia in which the primary judge had dismissed its claim for relief against Shin-Sun Australia Pty Ltd. The primary judge held that Health World had failed to establish that Shin-Sun had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or had breached a term of an agreement. The Federal Court also dismissed Health World's claim for an account of profits. The High Court upheld the appeal, finding that Shin-Sun had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The Court found that Shin-Sun had made representations to Health World that Shin-Sun had not engaged in conduct that would amount to misleading or deceptive conduct and that Shin-Sun had not acted honestly in its commercial dealings with Health World. The Court found that Health World was entitled to an account of profits in respect of Shin-Sun's breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Court also found that Shin-Sun was liable to pay damages to Health World for its failure to account for profits that it had made from the sale of a patent for a medical device. The Court ordered Shin-Sun to pay damages to Health World in the amount of $1,572,732.43 plus interest.

Orders