<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0"
 xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule"
>

<channel>
<title>AU - High Court of Australia</title>
<link>http://jade.barnet.com.au</link>
<description>AU - High Court of Australia</description>
<pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 00:45:01 EST</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 00:45:01 EST</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Australian Education Union v General Manager of Fair Work Australia
[2012] HCA 19
4 May 2012
M8/2011</title>
<description>Statutes  Acts of Parliament  Interpretation  Presumptions as to legislative intention  Presumption against retrospective operation  Full Federal Court of Australia held that registration of Australian Principals Federation (&#x22;APF&#x22;) under Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (&#x22;WR Act&#x22;) invalid because of absence of &#x22;purging rule&#x22; terminating membership of organisation of persons no longer entitled to be members  WR Act renamed Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) and s 26A inserted validating purported registrations made invalid because of absence of purging rule  Whether s 26A operated to validate registration of APF.

Constitutional law (Cth)  Judicial power of Commonwealth  Constitution, Ch III  Whether s 26A in substance dissolved or reversed the orders of the Full Federal Court  Whether s 26A impermissibly usurped or interfered with exercise of Commonwealth judicial power  Whether s 26A invalid.

Words and phrases  &#x22;registered organisation&#x22;, &#x22;retrospective operation&#x22;, &#x22;usurpation of judicial power&#x22;.
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://jade.barnet.com.au/viewArticle.do?src=rss&#x26;aid=264316</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Crump v New South Wales
[2012] HCA 20
4 May 2012</title>
<description>Constitutional law (Cth)  Judicial power of Commonwealth  Constitution, Ch III  Sentencing and parole procedure  Whether determination made under s 13A of Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW) is a &#x22;matter&#x22; within s 73 of Constitution  Whether s 154A of Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) invalid for setting aside, varying, altering or otherwise stultifying a judgment, decree, order or sentence of Ch III court.

Words and phrases  &#x22;parole&#x22;, &#x22;sentencing&#x22;.
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://jade.barnet.com.au/viewArticle.do?src=rss&#x26;aid=264317</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission
[2012] HCA 18
3 May 2012
S173/2011</title>
<description>Corporations  Duties and liabilities of directors and officers  Section 180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (&#x22;the Act&#x22;) required directors and officers of a corporation to discharge duties with degree of care and diligence that reasonable person in their position and with their responsibilities would exercise  &#x22;Officer&#x22; defined in s 9 of the Act  Paragraph (a) of definition provided that secretary of a corporation is an &#x22;officer&#x22;  Paragraph (b)(i) of definition provided that person who &#x22;participates in making&#x22; decisions that substantially affect business of corporation is an &#x22;officer&#x22;  Appellant was company secretary and general counsel of corporation  Whether appellant participated in making decisions substantially affecting business of corporation  Whether s 180(1) applied to all tasks that officer of corporation performed within that corporation  Whether responsibilities of company secretary and general counsel divisible  How scope of &#x22;responsibilities within the corporation&#x22; of an officer to be determined.

Words and phrases  &#x22;in the capacity of&#x22;, &#x22;occupied the office held by&#x22;, &#x22;officer&#x22;, &#x22;participate in making&#x22;, &#x22;real contribution&#x22;, &#x22;responsibilities within the corporation&#x22;.
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://jade.barnet.com.au/viewArticle.do?src=rss&#x26;aid=264250</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17</title>
<description>Corporations  Duties and liabilities of directors and officers  Contraventions of civil penalty provisions of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (&#x22;the Act&#x22;)  Corporation released misleading announcement to Australian Stock Exchange (&#x22;ASX&#x22;)  Australian Securities and Investments Commission (&#x22;ASIC&#x22;) brought proceedings against respondents (and others) for contraventions of the Act  Section 180(1) of the Act required directors and officers to act with degree of care and diligence that reasonable person in that position would exercise  ASIC alleged directors contravened s_180(1) by approving draft announcement not materially different from misleading announcement released to ASX  ASIC alleged company secretary and general counsel of corporation contravened s 180(1) by not advising board that draft announcement was misleading  Whether directors approved draft announcement.

Evidence  ASIC tendered minutes of board meeting recording tabling and approval of draft ASX announcement  Minutes subsequently approved  ASIC did not call corporation&#x27;s solicitor, who had supervised preparation of draft minutes and attended board meeting  Whether ASIC owed respondents a &#x22;duty of fairness&#x22; in its conduct of litigation  Whether ASIC breached putative duty by not calling solicitor  Whether proper consequence of any such breach was to discount cogency of ASIC&#x27;s case  Whether board minutes sufficient evidence to prove directors&#x27; approval of draft announcement.

Words and phrases  &#x22;cogency of proof&#x22;, &#x22;duty of fairness&#x22;, &#x22;obligation of fairness&#x22;, &#x22;onus of proof&#x22;, &#x22;satisfaction on the balance of probabilities&#x22;.
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://jade.barnet.com.au/viewArticle.do?src=rss&#x26;aid=264257</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited [2012] HCA 16
20 April 2012
S288/2011</title>
<description>Intellectual property  Copyright  Infringement  Authorisation  Appellants owners and exclusive licensees of copyright in commercially released films and television programs (&#x22;appellants&#x27; films&#x22;)  Respondent internet service provider supplied internet services under agreement requiring that services not be used to infringe others&#x27; rights or for illegal purposes  Users of respondent&#x27;s internet services infringed copyright in appellants&#x27; films by making appellants&#x27; films available online using BitTorrent peer-to-peer file sharing system  Notices served on respondent alleging copyright infringement by users of respondent&#x27;s internet services  Respondent took no action in response to notices  Whether respondent authorised infringement of copyright in appellants&#x27; films by users of respondent&#x27;s internet services.

Words and phrases  &#x22;authorise&#x22;.
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://jade.barnet.com.au/viewArticle.do?src=rss&#x26;aid=263754</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Aytugrul v The Queen [2012] HCA 15
18 April 2012
S315/2011</title>
<description>Criminal law  Evidence  Admissibility of evidence about DNA analysis  Appellant convicted of murder  Expert gave evidence at trial about mitochondrial DNA testing of hair found on deceased&#x27;s thumbnail  Expert&#x27;s statistical evidence given in form of frequency ratio and exclusion percentage  Whether evidence of exclusion percentage relevant given evidence of frequency ratio  Whether probative value of evidence of exclusion percentage outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice to appellant  Whether evidence of exclusion percentage misleading or confusing.

Evidence  Judicial notice  Argument for general rule that evidence of exclusion percentage is always inadmissible due to danger of unfair prejudice  Facts underpinning adoption of general rule not proved  Whether judicial notice can be taken of psychological research said to support adoption of general rule.

Words and phrases  &#x22;evidence&#x22;, &#x22;exclusion percentage&#x22;, &#x22;frequency ratio&#x22;, &#x22;judicial notice&#x22;, &#x22;misleading or confusing&#x22;, &#x22;unfair prejudice&#x22;.
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://jade.barnet.com.au/viewArticle.do?src=rss&#x26;aid=263678</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Betfair Pty Limited v Racing New South Wales [2012] HCA 12
30 March 2012
S116/2011</title>
<description>Constitutional law (Cth)  Operation and effect of Constitution  Freedom of interstate trade, commerce, and intercourse  Validity of fees imposed for use of NSW race field information  Practical effect of fee structure  Prejudice upon trade and not upon particular traders  Competitive disadvantage  Whether Racing Administration Act 1998 (NSW), s 33A(2) must be read as not authorising provisions in Racing Administration Regulation 2005 (NSW) obnoxious to s 92 of Constitution  Whether demonstrating greater financial impact on appellant relative to competitors sufficient to establish protection of intrastate trade from interstate competition.

Words and phrases  &#x22;competitive disadvantage&#x22;, &#x22;discrimination&#x22;, &#x22;protectionism&#x22;.
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://jade.barnet.com.au/viewArticle.do?src=rss&#x26;aid=263021</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Sportsbet Pty Ltd v New South Wales [2012] HCA 13
30 March 2012
S118/2011</title>
<description>Constitutional law (Cth)  Operation and effect of Constitution  Freedom of interstate trade, commerce, and intercourse  Approval of use of NSW race field information for fee on wagering turnover  Practical effect of imposition of fee  Connection between location of wagering operator business and turnover of that business  Prejudice upon trade and not upon particular traders  Whether power of approval under Racing Administration Act 1998 (NSW), s 33A confined by positive rule that trade and commerce between Territories and States shall be absolutely free  Whether legislation granting power of approval imposed discriminatory restraints and interferences of protectionist kind.

Constitutional law (Cth)  Operation and effect of Constitution  Inconsistency of laws  Effect of Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 31 on questions of inconsistency between Commonwealth and State law  Whether Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (Cth), s 49 limits State legislative power  Whether Racing Administration Act, ss 33 and 33A inconsistent with Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, s 49 and invalid to extent of inconsistency  Whether Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, s 49 interpreted in accordance with s 92 of Constitution.

Words and phrases  &#x22;free trade&#x22;, &#x22;practical operation&#x22;, &#x22;protectionism&#x22;.
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://jade.barnet.com.au/viewArticle.do?src=rss&#x26;aid=263022</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen [2012] HCA 14
30 March 2012
M126/2011</title>
<description>Criminal law  Appeal  Jury misdirection  Application of &#x22;proviso&#x22;  Appellant convicted of offence under Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic)  Trial judge failed to direct jury that prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt particular element of offence in issue  Whether appellate court able to conclude that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred  Whether judicial &#x22;discretion&#x22; in applying proviso.Words and phrases  &#x22;proviso&#x22;, &#x22;substantial miscarriage of justice&#x22;.
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://jade.barnet.com.au/viewArticle.do?src=rss&#x26;aid=263023</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Commissioner of Taxation v Bargwanna [2012] HCA 11
29 March 2012
S284/2011</title>
<description>Taxation  Income tax  Exemption from income tax under Div 50 of Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth)  Charitable purpose  Whether fund was applied for the purposes for which it was established  Whether application of fund viewed as a whole sufficient to qualify for exemption.

Trusts  Trustees  Charitable trust  Breaches of trust  Mingling of trust monies with other monies  Use of trust monies by trustees in their personal capacity  Relevance of success on possible application under s 85 of Trustee Act 1925 (NSW).

Words and phrases  &#x22;charitable trust&#x22;, &#x22;income tax exemption&#x22;, &#x22;misapplication of trust monies&#x22;, &#x22;purposes for which it was established&#x22;.
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://jade.barnet.com.au/viewArticle.do?src=rss&#x26;aid=262958</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
