Cases and authorities

EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Judicial advice — Lost trust deed — Express trust fails for uncertainty — Assets held subject to resulting trust

COSTS – competing motions – usual order follow the event – discretion to depart – apportionment sought –_ costs orders should reflect practical outcome of motions heard – no departure from usual order

REMEDIES – breach of statutory and fiduciary duties by officers of corporation – election between equitable compensation and account of profits – time for making election – where further information required to make election

CRIME – Murder – Trial by judge alone – Verdict – Where accused had a car accident with the deceased – Where accused failed to stop after the accident – Where deceased followed the accused home – Where accused caused fatal injury or injuries during the physical confrontation at the accused’s home – Where accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of excessive self-defence – Where manslaughter plea not accepted by Crown in satisfaction of murder count – Where accused conceded the conduct was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as he perceived them – Whether reasonable possibility that the accused believed it was necessary to apply the force that caused the death in order to defend himself

APPEALS — leave to appeal — where defence struck out for abuse of process without leave to replead — whether injustice in preventing applicants from raising defence — where applicant focus on merits — failure to challenge correctness of finding of abuse of process — failure to establish arguable error in exercise of discretion to refuse leave to replead

CORPORATIONS — Voluntary administration — Deed of company arrangement — Application under s 444GA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for leave to transfer shares pursuant to DOCA — Whether residual equity in company — Whether shareholders unfairly prejudiced — where shareholder(s) have foreshadowed potential claims — Where shareholder(s) have delayed in bringing any application to set aside deed of company arrangement.

LEASES AND TENANCIES – LICENCE - Plaintiff sold a rural property to the defendant subject to a Licence Agreement that the plaintiff was entitled to occupy a part of the property for his lifetime for a $1 yearly fee – It was a term of the Licence Agreement that the defendant could terminate the licence if it was of the reasonable opinion that the plaintiff did not permanently reside at the property – The defendant purported to terminate the Licence Agreement – HELD that the plaintiff continues to reside permanently at the property – If the defendant did, in fact, hold an opinion otherwise, it was neither arrived at reasonably nor reasonably based on available material – The defendant was not entitled to issue a Notice of Termination under the Licence Agreement

COSTS – dispute concerning production of documents said to be required by experts to conclude their reports – appropriate course to seek pre-evidence disclosure and demonstrate exceptional circumstances for the purposes of Practice Note SC Eq 11 – combative correspondence exchanged leading instead to service of notice to produce – production ultimately agreed on limited basis – appropriate costs order

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — judicial review — review of decision by an Appeal Panel of the Workers Compensation Division of the Personal Injury Commission — whether the Appeal Panel erred in their reasons when rejecting the appeal — where the plaintiff had provided an updated statement as to the deterioration of her condition — where Appeal Panel draws an inference that the Medical Assessor had reviewed the document as he had updated the history previously obtained — whether the appeal panel was correct in applying the presumption of regularity to the Medical Assessors failure in commenting on the updated statement of the plaintiff — held the appeal panel incorrectly applied the presumption of regularity — held there is an error on the face of the record and jurisdictional error

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – where magistrate refused to direct plaintiff to appear by audiovisual link rather than in person for sentencing hearing – whether magistrate misapprehended duty under s 5B(2)(b) of Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW) by excluding consideration of inconvenience to the plaintiff – where court warrant for plaintiff’s arrest subsequently issued pursuant to s 25(2) of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – whether magistrate required to take into account plaintiff’s willingness and capacity to attend hearing by audiovisual link

CRIME – Sentence – manslaughter – excessive self-defence – findings of fact after trial – whether the offender intended to kill the deceased as opposed to inflict grievous bodily harm – whether the offender’s complex post-traumatic stress disorder materially contributed to the offence – disadvantaged and deprived background – youth – reduction in moral culpability – very good prospects of rehabilitation – unlikely to reoffend

CRIME – appeal – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – single driving incident that resulted in a series of collisions that caused injury and death – driving in a manner dangerous – misconduct by driving – failure to stop and render assistance – where applicant’s vehicle did not come into contact with another vehicle – where evidence that other drivers avoided the applicant – whether the applicant was “involved in an impact occasioning death” within the meaning of s 52A(6) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – whether verdicts open on the evidence CRIME – appeal – appeal against conviction – inconsistent verdicts – acquittal on one count of misconduct by driving pursuant to s 53 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – inability to reach verdict on a separate count of misconduct by driving pursuant to s 53 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – where the facts of the misconduct charges were the same facts that led to a conviction for dangerous driving pursuant to s 52A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – whether verdicts inconsistent

CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against conviction – common law offence – wilful misconduct in public office – whether misdirection that illegitimate purpose must be driving force of impugned conduct – whether direction given by primary judge disadvantaged applicant – whether difference between purpose and motivation – whether findings of guilt in judge-alone trial unsafe – appeal against conviction dismissed CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against sentence – whether error in determining objective seriousness – whether sentence manifestly excessive – appeal against sentence dismissed

CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – murder – sentencing judge found intention to kill established beyond reasonable doubt – whether sentencing judge erred – whether sentencing judge should have found intention to inflict serious bodily harm – intention to kill open on the evidence CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – Crown submission at trial that the deceased was run down unexpectedly and without warning – submission accepted by sentencing judge – sentencing judge inferred from submission that the deceased was not aware of the imminent attack – where agreed facts silent on what exactly occurred – evidence of other people present at the location of the murder – no evidence of conversation or anyone shouting a warning – evidence of the deceased not facing the vehicle at the time of collision – finding open on the evidence CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – background of disadvantage – drug use – no finding of causal connection – sentencing judge found the applicant’s account of dysfunctional upbringing unsupported or contradicted by other evidence – finding open on the evidence

HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – extended supervision order – preliminary hearing – interim orders sought – appointment of psychiatrists or psychologists – risk assessment – supporting documentation, if proved, justify the making of an order – discretion – conditions – orders made

CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings – striking out – where defendant/cross-claimant has arguable case on his cross-claim – where cross-claim, in its current form, is nonetheless insufficiently pleaded

CORPORATIONS – Voluntary administration – extension of convening period and other orders.

REMITTAL – business sale agreement – plaintiffs sell 2 smash repair businesses to large company with over 100 such businesses – “earn out” provision based on earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) “for the Businesses” – whether rebates and JobKeeper payments received by the corporate group should be included as earnings “for the Businesses” – whether accounting standards apply – whether generally accepted accounting principles apply. WORDS AND PHRASES – “for the business” at [47].

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — judgments and orders — proceedings dismissed for want of due despatch — no issue of principle

CONTRACTS – Remedies – Specific performance – Where vendor and purchaser entered into contract for sale of land which failed to complete – Where purchaser claimed specific performance of sale contract, and vendor claimed specific performance of an alleged novated and varied sale contract – Where vendor abandoned claim and consented to orders for specific performance of sale contract relied on by purchaser – Orders made for specific performance of that sale contract in terms consented to by the parties CONTRACTS – Construction and interpretation of sale contract to be specifically performed – Where vendor, after entering into the contract for sale of land, applied and was granted an exploration licence over a large area of land, including the land that is the subject of the sale contract, in respect of Group 5 minerals including clay – Whether the sale contract, properly construed, expressly requires the vendor to transfer its clay exploration licence to the purchaser upon completion or contains an implied term to that effect – Held: no express or implied term requiring transfer of clay exploration licence to purchaser on completion LAND LAW – Non-derogation from grant – Whether the vendor has derogated from the grant of property made to the purchaser under the contract for sale of land by refusing to transfer its clay exploration licence upon completion – Where evidence does not support imputing to the parties a common intention that the purchaser acquired the land for the purpose of gaining access to, and an entitlement to use, clay deposits – Held: no derogation from grant

EQUITY – Trusts and trustees – Resulting trusts – Presumption of resulting trust – Unequal contributions to purchase price PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for appointment of representative of deceased’s estate pursuant to r 7.10 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

CONTRACTS – Construction – Interpretation – Where one party assumed royalty obligations under a historical deed – Where royalty obligations calculated by reference to defendant’s proportionate share or interest in mining tenements as varied from time to time

COSTS – plaintiffs’ claims failed save for establishing that certain amounts were owing – such finding of little value as all companies wound up

CRIME – sentence – joint criminal enterprise – murder – manslaughter – assault with intent to rob in company – armed robbery – deceased stabbed multiple times during robbery – aggravated break and enter with intent to steal – assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company – where offender has limited reduced moral culpability – where delay in trial being heard to finality – where offenders experienced hardship in custody – where two offenders were on conditional liberty at the time of the offending – where failure to confirm guilty plea offer – whether guilty plea offer was withdrawn

EQUITY – Fiduciary duties, statutory unconscionability and conspiracy – whether contraventions established – quantification of loss.

CONTRACTS — Construction — Two commercial agreements govern the relationship between co-owners of a large suburban shopping centre – They contain pre-emptive rights clauses and provisions affecting certain disposals of shareholdings or voting rights in a co-owner – Breaches of various terms constitute a default which enlivens machinery for the valuation of the defaulting party’s interest in the property and an entitlement in the non-defaulting co-owners to purchase the defaulter’s interest – One such breach is a prohibited disposal, which occurs when a co-owner ceases to be a member of a co-owner’s group – Whether such a prohibited disposal took place – Whether non-defaulting party has entitlement to acquire whole of defaulting party’s interest in the property – Whether notice requirements for the acquisition by the non-defaulting party were complied with – HELD – A prohibited disposal took place, notice requirements were complied with and non-defaulting party is entitled to acquire whole of defaulting party’s interest in the property

MENTAL HEALTH – criminal proceedings – defence of mental illness – where the accused was charged with six offences, including the murder of Steven Tougher - where the parties agreed that the proposed evidence established a defence of mental health impairment –– enquiry under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 - whether the proposed evidence established a defence of mental health impairment – where there was no doubt the accused committed the physical acts – where two psychiatrists agreed that the accused suffered from a mental health impairment, namely schizophrenia – where both experts agreed that the accused did not know that this acts were wrong – where there was nothing to cast doubt on the opinions of the psychiat-rists – accepted that the accused suffered from a mental health impairment and that as a result he did not know that his acts were wrong – special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible returned

CONTRACTS — Breach of contract — Remedies — Damages — Remoteness of damage — Rule in Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 156 ER 145 — Koufos v Czarnikow Ltd [1969] 1 AC 350 — Where loss or damage claimed is too remote from breach of contract CONTRACTS — Unconscionable conduct — Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12CB — In connection with financial services — Meaning of “in connection with” — Where meaning given a wide operation to include acquisition of shares — Where conduct complained of not sufficiently connected to antecedent unconscionable dealings CONTRACTS — Unconscionable conduct — Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12CA — Unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law — Whether circumstances of vulnerable parties amounted to special disadvantage — Where Plaintiffs found not to have suffered from some special disadvantage CORPORATIONS — Members’ rights and remedies — Oppression — Relief sought under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 232, 233 for conduct they believe is contrary to the interests of the members as a whole — Where Plaintiffs have not identified in final submissions what relief they seek, nor established that the conduct was contrary to the interests of the members as a whole EQUITY — Fiduciary duties — Fiduciary relationships — Construction — Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41 — Where fiduciary duties are owed EQUITY — Fiduciary duties — Fiduciary relationships — Partners and joint venturers — Where relationship between parties is as a joint venture or some similar commercial arrangement — Fiduciary relationship found pursuant to broader characterisation of parties’ relationship

CRIME – Sentence Appeal – sexual touching and sexual intercourse with a child – plea of guilty at District Court “super call-over” – whether the sentencing judge should have found that the applicant facilitated the administration of justice – where s 22A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) was not raised before the sentencing judge – failure by the sentencing judge to consider the principles relevant to sentencing youth – complex interplay between youth, mental illness and cognitive impairment – error established – applicant re-sentenced

CORPORATIONS – Shares – Rectification of share register – Application for rectification of register kept by Australian Securities and Investments Commission incorrectly value of ordinary shares issued on incorporation of Plaintiff – Where incorrect information given as to value of shares – Whether order for rectification of register should be made – Whether order validating registration of company should be made.

CRIMINAL LAW – release application – second application – requirement to establish charge of circumstances – where Judge who refused bail acted on information that applicant’s medical condition would receive treatment – where medical care inadequate – assessment of risk – stringent bail conditions – home detention enforced by electronic monitoring – victim’s legitimate concerns considered – bail granted

EVIDENCE – tendency evidence – tendency rule – murder – defence of self-defence – accused’s reliance on tendency evidence of the deceased – whether the tendency evidence has “significant probative value” under s 97(1)

CORPORATIONS — Winding up — Statutory demand — Application to set aside — Whether there is a genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt — Whether there is a defect in the demand — Whether the demand should be set aside on other grounds.

COSTS — No question of principle COSTS — Payable out of a fund — Deceased estate COSTS — Party/Party — Exceptions to general rule that costs follow the event — Offers of compromise/Calderbank offers

PUBLIC ASSEMBLY – Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) – proposed land assembly and on-water blockade of shipping channel – whether an order prohibiting the assembly should be made – whether orders required to enable police to give directions and make arrests in the course of extended protests – risks to the safety of protestors and police officers – where civil disobedience likely – importance of police retaining full extent of powers to deal with risks – prohibition order made

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — standing — judicial review proceedings brought under the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) — whether plaintiff has interest in proceedings beyond that of ordinary member of the public — where plaintiff pursues relief in public interest — where plaintiff pursues no personal right in proceedings — where plaintiff does not seek to gain advantage from proceedings — plaintiff does not have standing CIVIL PROCEDURE — summary disposal — dismissal of proceedings — whether plaintiff’s claims are so obviously untenable that they cannot possibly succeed — where plaintiff did not put on submissions or evidence to advance its case — where this Court not empowered to grant some of the relief sought by the plaintiff — where plaintiff’s judicial review application is misconceived CIVIL PROCEDURE — hearings — adjournment — where plaintiff requested adjournment by email to associate — where plaintiff had not complied with timelines for filing evidence and submissions — where plaintiff did not file submissions — where no explanation for failure to comply with court orders was given — where plaintiff was self-represented — adjournment application refused at hearing COSTS — gross sum costs order — whether discretion to order gross sum costs ought be exercised — whether costs assessment likely to be protracted and expensive — where it is unlikely plaintiff can pay defendants’ costs COSTS — security for costs — where plaintiff corporation produced no bank statements or tax returns or list of assets — plaintiff impecunious COURTS AND JUDGES — bias — where plaintiff alleged bias at hearing — where plaintiff was self-represented — where plaintiff disagreed with judge’s decisions — bias not established JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS — amending, varying and setting aside —— where parties had filed written submissions pursuant to order of the Court — where submissions did not come to the attention of the Court — where judgment delivered without regard to those submissions — original judgment set aside and new judgment issued

APPEALS — Leave to appeal — From interlocutory orders refusing to discharge injunctions and asset preservation orders and remove caveat — Where applicants proposed to pay into court a sum of money in lieu of existing injunctions and asset preservation regime — Where applicants alternatively sought removal of caveat to enable refinancing of real property — Where primary judge ordered temporary removal of caveat to permit refinancing to occur — Whether continued danger that prospective judgment debt will be unsatisfied — Whether interests of justice favour continuance of orders — Whether any arguable House v The King error

CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – parity principle – whether fact that participants in the same criminal enterprise charged with significantly different offences precluded application of parity principle – despite differences in the charges and the inability of the Court to review exercise of prosecutorial discretion, parity principle applies but the effect to be given to it may vary – whether aggregate sentence gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance – in the absence of a sufficient explanation of the application of the parity principle, there was a justifiable sense of grievance – the parity principle can require imposition of a sentence that would otherwise be less than adequate, provided that the sentence is not so low as to amount to an afront to the administration of justice.

SENTENCING – appeal against sentence co-offenders – disparity between sentences – where the Applicant was a participant in a conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug – where the Applicant was the only co-conspirator to plead not guilty and was the last to be sentenced – where factual challenges made to the sentencing judge’s findings as to the Applicant being senior to another of the co-conspirators in the hierarchy of responsibility in relation to the conspiracy – whether the sentence imposed on the Applicant gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance in light of the sentence imposed on that co-conspirator – where that co-offender’s undiscounted indicative sentence in respect of the conspiracy was half of that imposed on the Applicant

SUCCESSION – Family provision – where the deceased loaned significant sums of money on favourable terms and provided rent-free accommodation to enable the appellants to study in Australia – where the deceased made provision for the appellants in his will – where the appellants sought an order for provision in the sum of $300,000 to $450,000 out of the deceased’s estate – whether the primary judge erred in determining that the appellants had not demonstrated factors warranting under s 59(1)(b) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) – whether the primary judge erred in determining that adequate provision for the proper maintenance, education or advancement in life of the appellants had been made by the deceased under his will pursuant to s 59(1)(c) of the Succession Act CIVIL PROCEDURE – Appeals – appropriate standard of appellate review of a decision under ss 59(1)(b) and (c) of the Succession Act

JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – amending, varying and setting aside – correction under slip rule

COSTS – costs follow the event – departure sought from usual order – alleged misconduct – where misconduct alleged in different proceedings – usual order made

COSTS – expert determination of buy-out price – expert issues valuation, identifies error and issues second valuation – resulting $10 million difference in buy-out price – each party supports the valuation which favours them at trial – neither valuation held to be binding – parties to pay their own costs.

COSTS – dispute between landlord and tenant involving a contested valuation – landlord leveraged discrete issue to end settlement regime in Deed and Contract for sale of land and lease – whether tenant entitled to indemnity costs – no relevant delinquency in the conduct of the proceedings – whether costs should be apportioned, principles at [18]-[19] – landlord succeeded on the discrete issue but tenant otherwise succeeded – costs apportioned based on parties’ relative success.

CONSUMER LAW — misleading or deceptive conduct — representations as to future matters — silence or non-disclosure — alleged representations by first defendant as to ongoing operation of the first plaintiff’s business, lease of business premises, value of business, establishment of competing business, and terms of deed of settlement — insufficient evidence that the pleaded representations were made — insufficient evidence of and evidence contraindicating reliance by plaintiffs on alleged representations — HELD — claims of misleading or deceptive conduct against first defendant dismissed — deed of settlement applies in accordance with its terms CORPORATIONS — directors and officers — whether first defendant was an officer of the first plaintiff — s 9AD(1)(b) Corporations Act — where first defendant participated in some decisions affecting corporation’s business — insufficient to make him an officer of the company — directors’ duties — alleged breach by third defendant of statutory and fiduciary duties — duty not to use information improperly — duty not to use position as director improperly — duty of care and diligence — duty to act in good faith in best interests of company — alleged breaches involving failure to exercise lease option, establishing competing business, and taking staff and business — insufficient evidence of pleaded conduct by third defendant said to constitute breaches — HELD — first defendant not an officer of first plaintiff; unnecessary to determine associated claims against him — claim against third defendant dismissed EQUITY — breach of confidence — first defendant’s access to first plaintiff’s confidential business and financial information — alleged misuse by first defendant — plaintiffs’ failure to identify confidential information with precision — failure to particularise misuse or resulting loss to plaintiffs — HELD — breach of confidentiality claim against first defendant dismissed

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Dismissal of proceedings — Non-appearance of plaintiff — Plaintiff resident in China — Following the plaintiff’s legal representatives ceasing to act for him immediately following a pre-trial directions listing, and despite only recently paying into Court security for costs in the sum of $350,000, the plaintiff failed to comply with pre-trial directions or attend several mentions of the matter (either in person or by audio-visual link, or by engaging a representative on his behalf) in the lead up to the final hearing, despite continued correspondence from the remaining active defendants — Defendants made separate applications for dismissal of the plaintiff’s proceedings against them — Plaintiff’s proceedings dismissed CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Dismissal of proceedings — Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 61(3)(a) — By notice of motion filed five days before the final hearing was due to commence, the third defendant sought to have the proceedings against her dismissed pursuant to s 61(3)(a) — Plaintiff failed to appear when the motion was heard two days before the final hearing was due to commence — Being satisfied that the plaintiff had sufficient notice of the application for dismissal and considering the dictates of justice and guiding principles of case management, determined that the proceedings against the third defendant be dismissed CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Dismissal of proceedings — Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 29.7(4) — Upon the plaintiff’s non-appearance on the final hearing, the seventh defendant (appearing in person) made an application to have the proceedings against him dismissed — Being satisfied that the plaintiff had ample notice of the hearing and in light of his continued “radio silence” in respect of correspondence from the Court and the parties, considering the dictates of justice, determined that the proceedings against the seventh defendant be dismissed

Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited v Williams Damages – Assessment – Consumer law – Where Mr Williams and Direct Claim Services Qld Pty Ltd ("Williams parties") brought representative proceedings against Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited ("Toyota") on behalf of persons who acquired motor vehicles fitted with defective diesel exhaust after-treatment system – Where vehicles had propensity to experience defect consequences – Where effective fix became available in May 2020 free of charge ("repair") – Where primary judge concluded vehicles did not comply with guarantee of "acceptable quality" in s 54(1) of Australian Consumer Law ("ACL") at time of supply – Where s 271(1) of ACL provides that if guarantee under s 54 is not complied with, "an affected person in relation to the goods may ... recover damages from the manufacturer" – Where s 272(1)(a) of ACL provides that "an affected person in relation to goods is entitled to recover damages for ... any reduction in the value of the goods, resulting from the failure to comply with the guarantee to which the action relates" – Where primary judge held assessment of damages under s 272(1)(a) to be made at time of supply and information acquired thereafter could only be considered if it bore upon "true value" at time of supply, which did not include knowledge of availability of repair – Where Full Court of Federal Court of Australia held that assessment of damages under s 272(1)(a) may require departure from time of supply or adjustment to avoid "over‑compensation" – Where Full Court held that availability and timing of repair should be considered – Whether Full Court erred in permitting an assessment of damages after time of supply rather than only using information acquired thereafter to confirm what could be foreseen at time of supply – Whether Full Court erred in failing to conclude that damages under s 272(1)(a) are recoverable where there is no ongoing reduction in value at time of trial due to availability of repair. Words and phrases – "affected person in relation to goods", "assessment of damages", "availability of a repair", "compensation", "consumer", "damages", "defect", "defect consequences", "full knowledge of the defect", "guarantee of acceptable quality", "hypothetical reasonable consumer", "inherent features of the defect", "loss-based damages", "loss or damage", "performance-based damages", "reduction in value", "state and condition of the goods", "time of supply", "time of trial". Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law), ss 54(1), 271(1), 272(1)(a), 272(1)(b).

Damages – Assessment – Consumer law – Where appellant brought representative proceedings against respondent on behalf of persons who acquired motor vehicles fitted with "DPS6" transmission – Where vehicles had at least one of five defects – Where primary judge concluded vehicles did not comply with guarantee of "acceptable quality" in s 54(1) of Australian Consumer Law ("ACL") at time of supply – Where s 271(1) of ACL provides that if guarantee under s 54 is not complied with, "an affected person in relation to the goods may ... recover damages from the manufacturer" – Where s 272(1)(a) provides that "an affected person in relation to goods is entitled to recover damages for ... any reduction in the value of the goods, resulting from the failure to comply with the guarantee to which the action relates" – Where primary judge assessed damages payable under s 272(1)(a) – Where primary judge did not consider whether adverse consequences of each defect materialised in appellant's vehicle and fact that some defective components were replaced after date of supply – Where Full Court of Federal Court of Australia followed decision of Full Court in Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd v Williams [2023] FCAFC 50; (2023) 296 FCR 514 – Where Full Court held subsequent events were capable of bearing on assessment of damages under s 272(1)(a) and primary judge erred in not considering information known at time of trial and appellant's use of vehicle up until time of trial – Whether Full Court erred in finding that assessment of damages under s 272(1)(a) may require departure from time of supply or adjustment to avoid "over-compensation" – Whether Full Court erred in finding that assessment of damages under s 272(1)(a) required having regard to events after time of supply. Words and phrases – "assessment of damages", "consumer", "damages", "defect", "guarantee of acceptable quality", "loss-based damages", "materialisation of risks", "over-compensation", "performance-based damages", "reduction in value", "repair", "state and condition of the goods", "time of supply", "time of trial". Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law), ss 54(1), 271(1), 272(1)(a), 272(1)(b).

Constitutional law (Cth) – Judicial power of Commonwealth – Where cl 070.612A(1) of Sch 2 to Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) provides that each of conditions set out in paras (a)-(d) must be imposed on grant of Bridging R (Class WR) visa ("BVR") by Minister unless Minister "satisfied that it is not reasonably necessary to impose that condition for the protection of any part of the Australian community" – Where condition in cl 070.612A(1)(a) ("monitoring condition") enables continuous electronic monitoring of person's location by requiring person to wear electronic monitoring device affixed around person's ankle – Where condition in cl 070.612A(1)(d) ("curfew condition") requires person to remain in specified location generally between 10.00 pm and 6.00 am – Where condition imposed on grant of BVR remains in force for period of 12 months from date of grant – Where failure to comply with monitoring condition or curfew condition an offence punishable by maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment or 300 penalty units or both and mandatory minimum sentence of one year's imprisonment – Where delegate of Minister granted plaintiff a BVR on conditions including monitoring condition and curfew condition – Where plaintiff arrested and charged with offences of failing to comply with monitoring condition and curfew condition – Whether cl 070.612A(1)(a) and (d) infringe Ch III of Constitution and are invalid. Words and phrases – "arbitrary punishment", "bodily integrity", "curfew condition", "detention", "detriment", "exclusively judicial", "interference with individual liberty or bodily integrity", "judicial power", "legitimate and non-punitive purpose", "liberty", "Lim principle", "monitoring condition", "pre-eminent value", "prima facie punitive", "punishment", "punitive purpose", "purpose of punishment", "reasonably capable of being seen to be necessary", "separation of powers". Criminal Code (Cth), Div 395. Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 73, 76C, 76D, 76DA, 76E. Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), regs 2.25AA, 2.25AB, 2.25AE, Sch 2, cl 070.612A(1), Sch 8, cll 8620, 8621.

CORPORATIONS – Whether transaction is an unreasonable-director related transaction under s 588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where director transferred relevant company funds to personal account – where the transfer caused detriment and had no corporate benefit to the company.