Cases and authorities

BAIL – “show cause” requirement – where applicant has satisfied grounds for further release application – where material about proposed rehabilitation program is insufficiently comprehensive or reliable – where available evidence does not suggest a drug addiction which requires rehabilitation – “show cause” requirement not met – application for bail refused

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Court administration – Case management – Defendant seeking to serve evidentiary statements on the eve of trial – Leave refused to rely on statements CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Striking out – Abuse of process – Application for paragraphs of a defence to be struck out as they deny events which were the subject of a criminal conviction

CORPORATIONS – Arrangements and reconstructions – Schemes of arrangement or compromise – Application under s 411 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for orders approving scheme of arrangement – Where formal requirements satisfied – Whether scheme of arrangement should be approved.

COSTS – application for removal of caveats – plaintiff a mortgagee in possession exercising powers of sale – defendants’ caveats preventing completion of contracts for sale – agreement reached for caveats to be withdrawn on settlement with net proceeds to be held in a trust account – following settlement defendants did not press claims to proceeds in priority to plaintiff – not unreasonable for plaintiff to commence proceedings – clear that plaintiff would have almost certainly succeeded in obtaining removal of caveats had matter been contested – appropriate to make costs order in favour of plaintiff.

EVIDENCE – Exclusion of evidence – Improperly or illegally obtained evidence – where non-party recorded a conversation between parties without their knowledge or consent – whether recording unlawful under s 7(1)(b) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) – whether probative value of recording outweighs undesirability of its admission into evidence – recording admitted EQUITY – Undue influence – where elderly parents’ making of directors’ resolutions, authorities, directions, powers of attorney, guardianships and revocations challenged by eldest son but not by the parents – where independent legal advice received on some of the documents – where unconscionable conduct and dishonest misrepresentations also alleged – whether actual undue influence established – whether presumption of undue influence rebutted – whether lack of capacity by undue influence – where dealings not objectively improvident – undue influence established in relation to one power of attorney but not established for other documents ESTOPPEL – Estoppel by convention – Mutual assumption – where party asserting estoppel over right to hold share in family company gave up right of appointment of trustee and undertook management of properties – where said party continued holding voting share on trust – whether parties adopted common assumption that beneficiary would not call for share transfer during his lifetime – whether detrimental reliance established – beneficiary estopped from calling for share transfer ESTOPPEL – Equitable estoppel – Proprietary estoppel – Encouragement – Detrimental reliance – where alleged promise or representation to leave property to in a will – where promisee and representee continued to manage property and did not seek reimbursement of other costs – whether detrimental reliance established – no estoppel found EQUITY – Trusts and trustees – Court’s supervision of – Appointment and removal of trustees – where director of trustee company procured entry into agreement for lease against wishes of some beneficiaries – where breakdown of relations between two of three directors and between one director and the beneficiaries of trustee company – whether director breached duties or procured trustee company to breach duties – trustee not removed

MENTAL HEALTH – application for extension of status as a forensic patient – defendant made no submission against extending the forensic order – court satisfied that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk – extension granted for two years

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – historical sexual offences – whether Crown concession as to the objective seriousness of count 1 – whether error in assessment of applicant’s mental health where no submission was made about general deterrence – whether applicant suffered a serious injustice – whether aggregate sentence is manifestly excessive

CRIME – offences – break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence therein – attempt – entry not effected – whether inchoate offence could only be break and enter with intent to commit a serious indictable offence – attempt related to both elements of offence – Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 112, 113 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – application by prosecutor to cross-examine own witness – unfavourable witness – statement to police put to witness – whether evidence admissible – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 38 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – application by prosecutor to cross-examine own witness – question challenged evidence on basis which affected witness’ credibility – question put to allow submission that witness mistaken – whether unfair to accused or witness – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 192(2)(b) CRIME – appeals — appeal against conviction — unreasonable verdict – identity of offenders – whether appellant present – whether appellant shared joint purpose to break and enter and intimidate SENTENCING – appeal – evidence – evidence of personal circumstances not adduced before sentencing judge – whether admissible on appeal to challenge sentence – admissible on resentencing SENTENCING – leave to appeal – aggregate sentence for multiple offences – aggregate sentence exceeded sum of putative individual sentences SENTENCING – relevant factors on sentence – parity – sentence of co-offender reduced on appeal – whether ground of reduction required adjustment of applicant’s sentence

SUCCESSION — Trusts and trustees — Judicial advice, Trustee Act 1925 (NSW), s 63 — Substitution of trustee, Trustee Act 1925 (NSW), s 70

CORPORATIONS – Arrangements and reconstructions – Application under s 63 of the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW) for judicial advice with respect to the implementation of trust scheme – Whether scheme is fair and reasonable so that an intelligent and honest person who was a unitholder, properly informed and acting alone, might approve it.

CRIMINAL LAW – proceeds of crime – restraining orders

TORTS — Negligence — Appellant injured as a result of falling on the first step on a stepped path in a park — Whether the primary judge erred in finding that the appellant had breached the duty of care which it owed to the respondent — Primary judge found the respondent to be a witness of credit who maintained that he was taking care and was not distracted —Experts agreed that single steps presented a hazard — Primary judge was not in error in finding that the appellant failed to take reasonable precautions against the risk of harm and was negligent — Appeal dismissed NEGLIGENCE — Cross Appeal — Damages — Challenged findings of contributory negligence and discount of damages for past economic loss — Primary judge concluded that contributory negligence was established — Finding of contributory negligence not contradicted by the finding of liability — No want of reasonable care on the part of the respondent that might have contributed to his failure to perceive the steps — Primary judge reduced the appellant’s damages for past economic loss by 10% to allow for circumstances in the respondent’s circumstances that would have caused him to retire earlier — Where primary judge made no express finding on the degree of probability that the respondent would have retired before 66 — Evidence accepted by the primary judge contradicted the prospect of early retirement — The discount of 10% was inconsistent with the positive findings of the primary judge — Cross-appeal allowed

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – interpretation – Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW) (HCC Act), s 4 – definition of “disciplinary body” – whether disciplinary body “established under” the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009 (NSW) (National Law) – definition required to be read into HCC Act, s 90B – where Commission referred complaint to the Tribunal (NCAT) under the National Law, s 145C – where NCAT “established under” the National Law – whether NCAT authorised by the National Law to exercise the specified power of a disciplinary body in relation to a registered health practitioner STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – interpretation – HCC Act, s 90B – National Law, s 145C – interaction between HCC Act and National Law – where Director of Proceedings determined that the Commission should prosecute complaint before the Tribunal – whether Director of Proceedings acting ultra vires – whether distinction between Commission “prosecuting” the complaint before a disciplinary body and referring the complaint to the Tribunal PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – health practitioners – dental practitioners – whether Commission referred a complaint against registered dentist to the Tribunal pursuant to s 145C of the National Law

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Particular administrative bodies – Health Care Complaints Commission – Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW) – Registered health practitioner – Whether the Commission failed to consult the appropriate professional council under s 39(2) before making a prohibition order under s 41A – Where the complaint against the health practitioner concerned conduct outside the field of his registration – Whether failure to consult the appropriate professional council rendered the prohibition order invalid.

CRIME — appeal bail — application for bail pending purported appeal against sentence imposed many years previously — no extension of time for leave to appeal sought or granted — whether Court has jurisdiction to grant bail — whether Court should grant extension to permit application to be entertained —whether special or exceptional circumstances established in any event — whether unacceptable risk of commission of serious offence in any event

CRIME – sexual offences – offences alleged to have been committed between 1982 and 1987 – legislative changes with respect to sexual offences – Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 81 repealed with effect from 8 June 1984 and s 78K enacted with effect from that date – appellant arraigned on indictment that charged offences against s 81 and s 78K in the alternative with dates commensurate with dates the provisions in force – indictment amended to take benefit of s 80AF Crimes Act – s 80AF allowed prosecution to rely on s 81 (as the offence carrying the lesser maximum penalty) for the entirety of the charged period, beyond the date s 81 was in force – whether judge erred in granting leave to amend indictment – whether principles against retrospectivity of legislation offended – when criminal proceeding commences – when criminal proceeding “pending” STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – retrospectivity – whether s 80AF Crimes Act substantive or procedural – whether provision affects existing rights or obligations – to classify s 80AF as substantive and deny it retrospectivity would undermine legislative intention and deprive it of effectiveness – even if substantive, s 80AF clearly intended to alter the existing law – need for interpretation of statute in context of circumstances CRIME – sexual offences – charge for offence against s 78K Crimes Act of homosexual intercourse with a male person aged between 10 and 18 years – indictment alleged offence committed during time when complainant 14 to 16½ years old – s 78T(1) Crimes Act provided that prosecution must be commenced within 12 months where complainant aged over 16 years at time of alleged offence – prosecution commenced much later – whether prosecution statute-barred – dates were an essential fact of prosecution and statutory time limit applied – conviction quashed and verdict of acquittal entered CRIME – appeals – successful appeal against conviction on one count – aggregate sentence quashed and appellant re-sentenced on other counts

CRIMINAL LAW – powers of District Court in hearing appeal from Local Court under Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 – federal offences – whether District Court can exercise power under s 19B of Crimes Act 1914 – whether District Court can exercise power under s 20BQ of Crimes Act 1914 – Judiciary Act, s 68 and s 79 – whether powers can be exercised on appeal against sentence if no power to set aside conviction – whether powers can be exercised on appeal against conviction.

EVIDENCE – Affidavit evidence – Rejection of evidence – Seeking to introduce new evidence whilst trial underway CIVIL PROCEDURE – Hearings – Adjournments – Relevant factors – Where case had been listed since March 2020 – Where proceedings were filed in 2016 - Where application made after final hearing had commenced – Prejudice to defendants – Adjournment refused

CRIMINAL LAW – pretrial application – accused charged with murder – accused seeks exclusion of admissions made to an undercover police officer during a covert “scenario” investigation – covert investigation methodology as described in Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 213 CLR 396; [2007] HCA 39 – objection on basis admissions obtained as a result of oppressive conduct under s.84 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – s.84 objection overruled – objection on basis admissions unreliable under s.85 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – construction of s.85(1) considered – s.85 objection overruled – objection on basis that evidence of admissions unfair to Accused under s.90 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – s.90 objection overruled – objection on basis that probative value of admissions outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice to accused under s.137 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – s.137 objection overruled – evidence admissible

SUCCESSION – Family Provision – Claim by adult child of the deceased for provision under Ch 3 of the Succession Act – No dispute as to eligibility under s 57(1)(c) of the Act – Some provision made for him in the last Will of the deceased – Reasons for the limited provision made for the Plaintiff stated by the deceased – Dispute as to accuracy of reasons – Significant competing claim of one Defendant, also an adult child of the deceased – Whether the Plaintiff was left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance and advancement in life – Whether an order for provision should be made for his proper maintenance and advancement in life and, if so, in what amount – Provision to be made for the Plaintiff in lieu of the provision made for him in the deceased’s Will.

APPEALS – procedure – stay pending appeal

NEGLIGENCE – duty of care – formulation of risk – whether formulation too narrow – formulation focussed purely and precisely on the circumstances in which injury suffered – more generalised formulation would not have affected outcome NEGLIGENCE – breach – whether risk of harm “not insignificant” – common knowledge that lifting heavy weights from floor level can cause back injury – obvious that leaving weights littering floor of gymnasium would force others to put them away – whether reasonable person would have taken precaution of implementing system of inspecting weights area – constant supervision not required – no reason why staff could not be present during limited problematic period to enforce rules about putting weights away after use NEGLIGENCE – causation – whether factual causation established – gymnasium member injured when lifting heavy weight from floor level – not within member’s exercise regime – member clearing floor to allow her to exercise – injury due to failure of gymnasium to enforce its own rules

EVIDENCE – hearsay – maker of representation available and has already given evidence – where representation made was not sought to be elicited from the witness by counsel – Whether admissibility turns on the witness giving evidence of the representation EVIDENCE – credibility – whether questions asked in cross-examination implicitly suggested the evidence was fabricated or reconstructed

CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for adjournment – lockdown orders in force in Greater Sydney – plaintiff ordered by NSW Health to self-isolate due to possible exposure to COVID-19 – whether plaintiff has a fair opportunity to participate in the hearing – application refused

COSTS – plaintiff sought specific enforcement of deed in which defendant granted a drainage easement – plaintiff requested signed original documents from defendant to effect exchange of deeds and registration of easement – plaintiff commenced proceedings after defendant’s delay in providing original documents – defendant subsequently sent original documents – parties agreed the proceedings should be dismissed – both parties seek costs – whether defendant was guilty of unreasonable delay in complying with obligations – whether plaintiff was unreasonable in commencing proceedings where existence of binding deed was questionable and plaintiff in any event not ready, willing and able to perform his obligations – held that it is not appropriate for the Court to conduct a hypothetical hearing on those questions – no determination on the merits – no order as to costs.

SENTENCING – Manslaughter – Substantial impairment – Where offender diagnosed with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and intermittent explosive disorder – Where weapon used – Where no motive – Where offence partly explained by offender’s substantial impairment of capacity to control – Whether mental conditions reduced moral culpability – Whether prospects of rehabilitation guarded without adequate mental health treatment – Whether finding of special circumstances appropriate – Where offender young – Where offender willing to plead to manslaughter

OCCUPATIONS – legal practitioners – duties and liabilities – duties to client – cross-claimants asked by son to help repay his debts by using cross-claimants’ home as security – short term loan where exit strategy was sale of security property to son - default under loan agreement and mortgage – where proceedings by lender compromised – cross-claim against solicitor - whether solicitor failed to explain loan agreement and mortgage to cross-claimants – whether solicitor was negligent and breached retainer – where in absence of a letter written following client conference solicitor recorded advice in a file note – where satisfied that solicitor explained nature of loan and consequences if loan not repaid – where failure to complete documents in approved form not evidence of negligence – where even if breach of duty, causation not established as cross-claimants would have gone ahead with arrangement –whether conduct of solicitor was unconscionable – where conduct not unconscionable simply because clients were in disadvantaged position – whether conduct of solicitor was misleading and deceptive – cross-claim dismissed

CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Where applicant pleaded guilty to an offence of supplying a prohibited drug at a dance festival – Where in assessing the objective seriousness of the offending the sentencing judge took judicial notice of the fact that a number of people had died as a consequence of such offending which occurred on a regular basis and was often committed by young people of good backgrounds who had no criminal convictions –Whether such considerations were relevant to an assessment of objective seriousness as opposed to being relevant to general deterrence – Error established CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Where applicant pleaded guilty to further counts of ongoing supply of a prohibited drug and offering to supply a prohibited drug – Where competing submissions had been made as to the nature and extent of the applicant’s role and the objective seriousness of his offending – Where the Crown’s submissions as to objective seriousness were advanced partly on the basis of an erroneous assertion which was unsupported by the evidence – Where the sentencing judge adopted the Crown’s submissions in the absence of the exposition of the reasoning process which led him to make that determination – Where the sentencing judge failed to engage with a submission advanced on behalf of the offender as to his role – Importance of the assessment of objective seriousness of offending in the sentencing process – Necessity for a judge to give proper reasons as an incident of the judicial process – Error established CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Re-sentence – Objective seriousness of the offending – Significant role played by the offender in respect of each count – Need for both general and personal deterrence – No lesser sentence warranted – Appeal against sentence dismissed

JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Court of Criminal Appeal – Application for leave to re-open – Principles governing – Whether failure to consider ground of appeal – Whether various misapprehensions of fact and law – No slip, oversight, or misapprehension identified – Attempt to reargue appeal on grounds not previously advanced – Whether Kentwell error – Leave refused SENTENCING – Appeal against sentence – Role of appellate court – Re-exercising the sentencing discretion afresh – Adopting findings of primary judge – Effect of Kentwell v The Queen

CRIMINAL LAW – Leave to appeal against conviction after pleas of guilty – In effect, application to withdraw pleas of guilty – Where applicant challenged integrity of the plea on the basis of having been misled by his legal representatives – Where legal representatives explained the consequences of pleading guilty and gave extensive advice – Where applicant had voluntarily signed, and had interpreted for him, a statement of agreed facts and written instructions – Where evidence did not establish that the applicant did not understand the nature of the pleas of guilty or that he was being sentenced for serious offences – Where applicant anticipated lesser sentence – No miscarriage of justice in the circumstance not to allow pleas of guilty to be withdrawn – Leave to appeal refused CRIMINAL LAW – Leave to appeal against sentence – Potential ground that sentence manifestly excessive – Sentence not outside the range of available sentence and not unreasonable or plainly unjust – Leave to appeal refused

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – 10 offences including accessory after the fact to break enter and steal, robbery armed with an offensive weapon, steal from the person and reckless wounding – error on part of sentencing judge in referring to maximum penalty for one of the offences – need to re-sentence – whether lesser sentence warranted in law – whether sentencing judge failed to properly consider totality and accumulation – no lesser penalty warranted in law – appeal against sentence dismissed.

CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – trial by jury – directions to Jury – where the jury was provided with a written document in the form of question trails – where the written document was not spoken to by the trial Judge – necessity for oral directions – written directions do not substitute the need and requirement of oral directions

CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Appeal against conviction – Where appellant convicted of aggravated break and enter and discharging a firearm – No issue at trial as to the commission of the offences – Sole issue whether the Crown had established beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who was responsible – Where observations were made by several witnesses of the person at the time of the offending – Observations inconsistent as to the person’s skin colour and other characteristics – Where there were a series of other circumstances which the jury were entitled to take into account in concluding that the Crown had established its case beyond reasonable doubt – Necessity to consider a circumstantial case as a whole and not in a piecemeal fashion – Strong case against the appellant – Evidence not lacking in probative value – Open to the jury to find the offences proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal against convictiondismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Where applicant pleaded guilty to a series of offences relating to drug supply – Whether the sentencing judge erred in her assessment of the role of the applicant – Whether applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance in light of sentences imposed on co-offenders – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Where it was open to the sentencing judge to reject the applicant’s evidence as to his role – Where disparity in sentences was justified on the basis that the criminality of the applicant extended well beyond that of his co-offenders – Serious offending – Where any sentence was required to reflect both general and personal deterrence – Where applicant’s subjective case unremarkable – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed

EVIDENCE – hearsay evidence – maker of representation unavailable – whether unfair prejudice to the accused outweighs the probative value of the representation – unfair prejudice through inability to test evidence going to proof of indispensable intermediate fact in Crown case – unfair prejudice tempered by nature of judge alone hearing

EQUITY — Unconscionable conduct — Special disability or disadvantage — Other party’s knowledge — Mental incapacity — First defendant entered into transactions and property dealings with deceased in circumstances where deceased lacked capacity — Estate entitled to recover property acquired by first defendant as a constructive trustee FAMILY LAW — Marriage — Void marriage — Consent — First defendant purportedly married deceased in circumstances where deceased was incapable of understanding the nature and effect of marriage ceremony

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION – claim under the Australian Consumer Law – alleged pre-contractual representations – proceedings commenced on last day of limitation period – application for stay – whether court or arbitrator should determine scope of arbitration clause – kompetenz-kompetenz – principles at [48]-[59] – prima facie approach applied – arbitrator to determine jurisdiction – proceedings stayed. CONDITIONS OF STAY – plaintiff seeks conditions on stay regarding limitation period and applicable law – principles at [92]-[111], [116]-[117] – condition regarding limitation period would substantively alter rights – conditions not imposed.

CORPORATIONS – Arrangements and reconstructions – Schemes of arrangement or compromise – Application under s 411 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for orders approving scheme of arrangement – Where formal requirements satisfied – Whether scheme of arrangement should be approved.

CORPORATIONS — Remedies — Injunctions under s 1324 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) — Interim injunction pending final determination. EQUITY — Equitable remedies — Interlocutory injunctions — General law — Section 66 of Supreme Court Act (NSW) — Serious question to be tried — Whether seriously arguable case that responsible entity acted with improper purpose — Whether seriously arguable case that transactions entered into by responsible entity of target trust constitute “frustrating conduct” and breach of duties. EQUITY — Equitable remedies — Injunctions — General law — Section 66 of Supreme Court Act (NSW) — Balance of convenience — Where interlocutory injunctive relief would prejudice unitholder third parties — Where such prejudice would not practically be addressed by undertaking as to damages — Where interlocutory relief would delay unitholders’ having opportunity to accept relevant offers or receive payment under them.

PRIVATE INTERNTATIONAL LAW – Assistance to foreign countries in criminal matters – Defendant convicted for conspiracy to defraud in UK – Foreign restraining orders and foreign pecuniary penalty orders registered under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth) – Application for partial discharge of registered foreign pecuniary penalty order from property in custody and control of the Official Trustee – Interests of third parties – Order made subject to protection of interests of lien holder

COSTS – proceedings seeking removal of unregistered dealing – dealing withdrawn following defendant’s failure to satisfy requisition – agreement made for proceedings to be dismissed – no determination on the merits – whether clear that plaintiff would have succeeded – whether defendant acted unreasonably – plaintiff failed to make further enquiries prior to commencing proceedings – appropriate to make no order as to costs.

COSTS — Party/Party — Basis of quantification — Where the defendants sought an order for costs on the indemnity basis on the ground that the plaintiff’s conduct in commencing and maintaining the proceedings was not reasonable — Where the Court found that the plaintiff’s conduct had not been shown to be unreasonable — Where the Court dismissed the defendants’ application for costs on the indemnity basis

PRIVILEGE – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 117, 118, 119 – rulings on claims for privilege – where there is in force a declaration by the Court that the first defendant holds assets on constructive trust for the plaintiffs – prior to the declaration the first defendant retained an accounting firm to manage the assets and the retainer is still on foot – where the first defendant, to obtain a stay of other orders made by the Court, gave an undertaking to the Court of Appeal to instruct the accounting firm to prepare documentation relating to the value, status and movements of the assets so as to distinguish between the assets which were found to be held on trust and the remaining assets – whether communications made between the first defendant, or on his behalf by his lawyers, and the accounting firm, or on their behalf by their lawyers, in relation to the formulation of the orders by the Court concerning the constructive trust, compliance with them and compliance with the Undertaking, are privileged – HELD – they are not privileged either because the parties to the communications were not under an express or implied obligation not to disclose their contents or because the communications were not made for the dominant purpose of the lawyers providing legal advice to the defendants or for the dominant purpose of the defendants being provided with professional legal services in relation to the proceedings

CONTRACTS – construction – interpretation – where parties entered into a loan agreement – where plaintiff and companies associated with defendant subsequently entered into a joint venture – where joint venture terminated by agreement – where termination agreement discharged “all payment obligations” the defendant may have to the plaintiff – whether the loan was a payment obligation discharged by the termination agreement CONTRACTS – construction – interpretation – distinction between accord and satisfaction and accord executory – whether termination deed operated as accord and satisfaction or accord executory CONTRACTS – construction – interpretation – agreements – use of recital in construction of a discharge clause – recital stated the agreement of two parties to the agreement – where other parties to the agreement – whether general words of discharge clause should be read down in accordance with the recital

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – the applicant seeks judicial review of a 2017 decision made by the Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act 1989, the first respondent – the Court published a judgment on 30 October 2020 resolving a number of issues raised by the plaintiff – the Court invited further submissions from the Minister and submissions in reply from the applicant on two outstanding issues – the first issue being whether the applicant and second defendant’s enclosure permits remained in conflict over a disputed portion of Crown road at the time of the 2017 decision – and if the enclosure permits are in conflict, whether that conflict requires resolution – the second issue being whether the Crown road is now enclosed, such that the enclosure permits can be lawfully cancelled.

CRIME – Appeal against sentence – failure to allow full utilitarian value for early plea of guilty – application of discount to aggregate sentence not indicative sentences – failure to specify non-parole period in indicative sentences that have a standard non-parole period – appeal allowed – applicant re-sentenced.

CRIME – trial procedure – prosecution evidence in rebuttal – whether splitting case – whether rebuttal of good character evidence – defence evidence that accused not violent – defence not foreseeable – evidence of angry behaviour in rebuttal – relationship between tendency evidence and character evidence CRIME – appeals – directions to jury – jury sought explanation of “reasonable doubt” – whether judge wrongly described meaning of term as a question of fact – whether apology for lack of assistance erroneous – whether need for comparison with civil standard

CORPORATIONS — Receivers and managers — Passing of accounts. CORPORATIONS — Receivers and managers — Appointment by Court — Application for approval of remuneration — Whether remuneration “fair and reasonable” — Indemnity in respect of partnership assets — Question of proportionality — Where claimed remuneration increased by multiple challenges to receiver’s conduct. CORPORATIONS — Receivers and managers — Appointment by Court — Claim for indemnity out of partnership assets in respect of disbursements — Question of costs of this application. CORPORATIONS — Receivers and managers — Appointment by Court — Application for release and discharge as receiver.

TORTS – injurious falsehood – false statement concerning trade, goods or business – publication to third party – publication of false allegations – allegations of dishonesty and fraud – lack of personal knowledge – employment relationship – injury to employee – malice – intimidation – improper motive – lack of good faith – reputational damage INTERIM RELIEF – serious question to be tried – balance of convenience – lack of prejudice SUPPRESSION ORDER – interim order – family law proceedings – prevent prejudice – proper administrative of justice – sufficient basis interim relief

SUCCESSION — Family provision — Claim by adult child — Quantum of provision to be made