Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 18 September 2013 26 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

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

[2013] HCAB 07 (18 September 2013)

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
There have been no cases handed down since [2013] HCAB 06 (22 August 2013).

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
Plaintiff M76/2013 v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship and Ors	Constitutional Law
Magaming v The Queen	Constitutional Law

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
There are no new matters ready for hearing in the original jurisdiction of the High Court.

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
The Ship Go Star v Daebo International Shipping Co Ltd	Admiralty Law
Honourable Brendan O’Connor, Commonwealth Minister for Home Affairs and Justice v Adamas & Anor	Administrative Law
Woodside Energy Ltd & Ors v Electricity Generation Corporation t/as Verve Energy; Electricity Generation Corporation t/as Verve Energy v Woodside Energy Ltd & Ors	Contract Law
Smith v The State of Western Australia	Criminal Law
Taylor v The Owners – Strata Plan No 11564 & Ors	Statutes

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the August 2013 sittings.

2: Cases Reserved

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

Administrative Law

See also Statutes: Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd & Anor v Kocak & Ors

See also Constitutional Law: Plaintiff M76/2013 v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship and Ors

Citizenship and Migration

See also Constitutional Law: Plaintiff M76/2013 v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship and Ors

Civil Procedure

Clark v Macourt
S9/2013: [2013] HCATrans 174.

Date heard: 13 August 2013.

Coram: Hayne, Crennan, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ.

Catchwords:

Civil Procedure – Damages – Assisted reproductive technology practice – Damages for breach of various warranties contained in the Deed relating to donor sperm – Proper categorisation of the contract – Whether the trial judge erred in not concluding that the respondent had fully mitigated her loss – Whether the respondent avoided the loss she otherwise would have sustained by having to replace the non-compliant sperm by charging her patients for the cost of replacement sperm.
Civil Procedure – Costs – Whether the respondent would have been entitled to indemnity costs if the award of damages was upheld in her favour.

Appealed from NSW (CA): [2011] NSWSC 1276; [2012] NSWCA 367.

Return to Top

Constitutional Law

See also Criminal Law: Lee & Anor v New South Wales Crime Commission

Magaming v The Queen

S58/2013: [2013] HCATrans 200.

Date heard: 3 September 2013.

Coram: French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell,…

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: [2013] HCAB 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Clark v Macourt, the High Court of Australia considered the issue of damages and costs in a case involving a breach of warranties in a contract for assisted reproductive technology services. The Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in not concluding that the respondent had fully mitigated her loss and whether the respondent had avoided the loss she would have sustained by having to replace the non-compliant sperm by charging her patients for the cost of replacement sperm. Additionally, the Court had to determine whether the respondent would have been entitled to indemnity costs if the award of damages was upheld in her favour.

The Court held that the trial judge did not err in not concluding that the respondent had fully mitigated her loss. The Court found that the respondent had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate her loss by charging her patients for the cost of replacement sperm. In relation to indemnity costs, the Court held that the respondent would not have been entitled to indemnity costs if the award of damages was upheld in her favour, as the Court found that the respondent's claim was not frivolous or vexatious.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. The Court also made an order for costs in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

Orders