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
MacarthurCook Fund Management Limited & Anor v TFML Limited
Corporations Law
Gillard v The Queen
Criminal Law
Lee v The Queen; Lee v The Queen
Criminal Law
Stewart & Anor v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)
Equity
Sidhu v Van Dyke
Equity
Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Limited v Hills Industries Limited & Anor
Equity
ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd v Goudappel and Anor
Statutes
2: Cases Reserved
Case
Title
Williams v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors
Constitutional Law
Plaintiff S156/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Migration
Plaintiff S297/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Migration
Plaintiff M150/2013 by his litigation guardian Sister Brigid Marie Arthur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Migration
3: Original Jurisdiction
Case
Title
S89/2014 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Migration
S4/2014 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor
Migration
4: Special Leave Granted
Case
Title
Argos Pty Ltd and Ors v Simon Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development and Ors
Administrative Law
Henderson v State of Queensland
Criminal Law
Kentwell v The Queen
Criminal Law
O'Grady v The Queen
Criminal Law
Rhiannon Gray by her tutor Kathleen Anne Gray v Richards
Damages
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd
Industrial Law
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSCA & Anor
Migration
1: Cases Handed Down
The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the May 2014 sittings.
Corporations Law
MacarthurCook Fund Management Limited & Anor v TFML Limited
Coram: French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Gageler JJ.
Catchwords:
Corporations – Managed investment schemes – Unlisted unit trust – Members' rights to withdraw from scheme – Where terms of issue of units in trust provided for redemption within stipulated time period – Where units not redeemed within stipulated time period – Whether obligation to redeem units subject to requirements of Pt 5C.6 of Corporations Act2001 (Cth) – Whether redemption of units constitutes withdrawal from scheme within meaning of Pt 5C.6 of Corporations Act2001 (Cth).
Words and phrases – "managed investment schemes", "redemption", "withdrawal".
Coram: French CJ, Crennan, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ.
Catchwords:
Criminal law – Appeal –…
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.
Continue reading High Court Bulletin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
High Court Bulletin [2014] HCAB 4
Case
[2014] HCAB 4
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case is an appeal against conviction. The appellants were convicted of sexual offences and sought to appeal their convictions on the basis that the jury was misdirected on the mental element of the offences. The court had to determine whether the jury was misdirected on the mental element of the offences and, if so, whether that misdirection was so fundamental that it resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the jury was misdirected on the mental element of the offences and that the misdirection was so fundamental that it resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was allowed and the convictions were quashed. This case is significant because it highlights the importance of proper jury directions in criminal trials and the potential consequences of misdirection on the part of the trial judge. It also underscores the importance of ensuring that the jury understands the mental element of the offences with which the accused is charged.