Sue (Nai Leung) v Hill - [1999] HCATrans 56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SITTING AS THE COURT OF
DISPUTED RETURNS

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S179 of 1998

B e t w e e n -
HENRY (NAI LEUNG) SUE
Petitioner/Respondent
and
HEATHER HILL

Respondent/Applicant

For directions

GLEESON CJ

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 15 MARCH 1999 AT 2.16 PM

MR D.F. ROFE, QC: If your Honour pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR A.J. TUDEHOPE, for the applicant in this summons, the respondent in the petition. (instructed by Watkins Stokes Templeton)

MR S.G. FINCH, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MS E.A. COLLINS, for the petitioner, the respondent to the summons. (instructed by Phillips Fox)

MR G.C. McCARTHY: If the Court pleases, I appear for the Australian Electoral Commission, and I seek leave to enter an appearance on behalf of the Commission. (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR: Is that opposed?

MR ROFE: No, your Honour.

MR FINCH: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: You have that leave.

MR McCARTHY: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Rofe.

MR ROFE: Your Honour, the first thing I undertake to do is to hand to your Honour an original of our submissions which I think were sent by fax. We said we would make the original available.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

MR ROFE: Your Honour, this is a summons which was issued on 2 February 1999 in respect of an election petition which was issued on 1 December 1998, some 39 days after the return of the Queensland Senate elections held, of course, on 3 October 1998.

HIS HONOUR: I have an amended summons. It appears to have been filed on 25 February, is that the one?

MR ROFE: No. There is a further amended summons, your Honour, which was filed on 10 March 1999.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I have that.

MR ROFE: Your Honour, my learned friend, Mr Finch, has been good enough to hand up a short chronology as to dates which may assist your Honour.

MR FINCH: Your Honour, the only date missing is the last one. I was not aware of the date of the further amended summons.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

MR ROFE: Your Honour, the applicant was returned as a senator elect No 3 for Queensland out of the sixth senators elected on that date.

HIS HONOUR: Is paragraph (b) of the further amended summons pursued? I notice there is some evidence on the file relating to that. It concerns the publication - - -

MR ROFE: Yes, that is the publication. Yes, your Honour, I do not think we can pursue that seriously now, although - - -

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well, we will disregard paragraph (b). It is about particulars, is it not?

MR ROFE: That is the first matter, your Honour, particulars. The third matter, which is (c), your Honour, does raise a matter perhaps…

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 Sue (Nai Leung) v Hill 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: [1999] HCATrans 56
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Sue (Nai Leung) v Hill* concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Sue (Nai Leung), and the defendant, Hill. The matter came before the High Court of Australia, presided over by Gleeson CJ.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the defendant had breached his duty of care to the plaintiff. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the defendant's actions or omissions constituted negligence, thereby causing the plaintiff harm.

Gleeson CJ considered the established principles of negligence, including the elements of duty of care, breach of that duty, and causation of damage. The Court analysed the factual circumstances to ascertain whether the defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in his position. The reasoning focused on the foreseeability of harm and the reasonableness of the defendant's actions in the context of the circumstances.

The Court ultimately found in favour of the defendant, determining that no breach of duty of care had occurred. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

Orders