Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 27 May 2015 31 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2015] HCAB 4 (27 May 2015)

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
Selig & Selig v Wealthsure Pty Ltd & Ors	Corporations
Lindsay v The Queen	Criminal Law
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection	Migration
State of Queensland v Congoo & Ors	Native Title

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Police v Dunstall	Criminal Law
Filippou v The Queen	Criminal Law
Gnych & Anor v Polish Club Limited	Property
AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Apotex Pty Ltd; AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Watson Pharma Pty Ltd; AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd	Patents

3: Original Jurisdiction

No new entries for May 2015.

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Wright Prospecting Pty Limited v Mount Bruce Mining Pty Limited & Anor; Mount Bruce Mining Pty Limited v Wright Prospecting Pty Limited & Anor	Contracts
The Queen v Beckett	Criminal law
The Queen v Pham	Criminal law
State of Victoria v Tatts Group Limited	Statutes
Tabcorp Holdings Limited v State of Victoria	Statutes
Macoun v Commissioner of Taxation	Taxation
Alcan Gove Pty Ltd v Zabic	Torts

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the May 2015 sittings.

Corporations

Selig & Selig v Wealthsure Pty Ltd & Ors

A11/2014: [2015] HCA 18.

Judgment Delivered: 13 May 2015.

Coram: French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ.

Catchwords:

Corporations – First and second respondents provided financial advice to appellants – First and second respondents found to have contravened various provisions of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("Act") and Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) – Whether liability should be limited to proportion of appellants' loss, having regard to comparative responsibility of other parties – Whether application of Div 2A of Pt 7.10 of Act limited to claims based on contravention of s 1041H of Act or also applies to other causes of action.

Procedure – Costs – Costs order against non-party – Where professional indemnity insurer had conduct of respondents' defence at trial and made decision to appeal – Where insurer acting in own interests by bringing appeal – Where respondents' cover under insurance policy was capped – Whether circumstances justified costs order against insurer who was a non-party to proceedings.

Words and phrases – "apportionable claim", "proportionate liability".

Appealed from FCA (FC): (2014) 221 FCR 1; (2014) 100 ACSR 566; [2014] FCAFC 64; (2014) 100 ACSR 566.

Held: Appeal allowed.

Return to Top

Criminal Law

Lindsay v The Queen

A24/2014: [2015] HCA 16.

Judgment Delivered:

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: [2015] HCAB 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Selig & Selig v Wealthsure Pty Ltd & Ors (2015) HCA 18 concerned the liability of financial advisors who contravened provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth). The court was required to determine whether the liability of the advisors should be limited to the proportion of the appellants' loss, considering their comparative responsibility. Additionally, the court needed to clarify whether the application of Div 2A of Pt 7.10 of the Corporations Act was limited to claims based on the contravention of s 1041H of the Act or if it also applied to other causes of action. The High Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the liability of the financial advisors should be apportioned according to their comparative responsibility and that Div 2A of Pt 7.10 applied to all claims based on contraventions of the Corporations Act, not just those related to s 1041H. Lindsay v The Queen (2015) HCA 16 dealt with the issue of provocation as a defence in a murder case. The appellant, a male Aboriginal man, claimed he killed a male Caucasian man who made sexual advances towards him in the presence of his de facto wife and family. The court had to decide whether the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) erred in concluding that the provocation defence should not have been left to the jury. The High Court allowed the appeal, stating that the CCA erred in concluding that the evidence could not satisfy the objective limb of the provocation defence. The court emphasised the relevance of contemporary attitudes to sexual relations in determining the minimum powers of self-control. Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) HCA 15 involved a visa cancellation decision based on the character test under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court was required to determine whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) erred in not considering information presented orally in support of the appellant's case, which arose during cross-examination of a witness. Additionally, the court had to decide whether s 500(6H) of the Migration Act precluded the AAT from adjourning the hearing to allow the appellant to meet the notice requirements. The High Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the AAT erred in not considering the information presented orally and that s 500(6H) did not preclude the AAT from adjourning the hearing.

Orders