High Court of Australia – [HCA]

  • The King v Anna Rowan – a Pseudonym [2024] HCA 9 (13 March 2024) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Edelman, Jagot and Beech‑jones JJ)
    Catchwords:
    The King v Anna Rowan – A Pseudonym

    Criminal law – Defences – Defence of duress – Where respondent charged with sexual offences committed against two of her daughters in presence of respondent's partner "JR" – Where, prior to trial, respondent sought to raise defence of duress – Where supporting evidence on voir-dire included daughters' evidence, forensic psychologist's report and tendency evidence concerning JR's threatening, violent and controlling behaviour – Where trial judge ruled no factual basis for duress – Where trial proceeded without duress being put to jury and respondent convicted – Where Court of Appeal of Supreme Court of Victoria found duress should have been put to jury – Whether Court of Appeal implicitly adopted doctrine of "duress of circumstances" instead of requirement there be threat to inflict harm if accused failed to commit acts charged – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding evidence was sufficient to raise defence of duress at common law and under s 322O of Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

    Words and phrases – "defence of duress", "duress at common law", "duress of circumstances", "ongoing threat", "operative threat", "threat to inflict harm", "unstated demand".
  • AB (a pseudonym) v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission [2024] HCA 10 (13 March 2024) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Statutes – Construction – Procedural fairness – Reasonable opportunity to respond – Where Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission ("IBAC") conducted investigation into allegations of unauthorised access to and disclosure of internal email accounts – Where IBAC provided redacted draft special report containing proposed adverse findings against appellants – Where IBAC refused to provide evidentiary material for proposed adverse findings – Where s 162(3) of Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 (Vic) relevantly provided that, if IBAC intends to include in report "a comment or an opinion which is adverse to any person", then IBAC must first provide person reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse material – Whether "adverse material" in s 162(3) referred to proposed adverse comments or opinions in report, or evidentiary material upon which proposed adverse comments or opinions based – Whether provision of substance or gravamen of adverse material sufficient to comply with obligation under s 162(3) – Whether substantive relief warranted where findings unaffected by misconstruction of s 162(3).

    Words and phrases – "adverse comment or opinion", "adverse finding", "adverse material", "evidentiary material", "reasonable opportunity", "reasonable opportunity to respond", "special report", "substance or gravamen".
  • Hurt v The King; Hurt v The King; Delzotto v The King [2024] HCA 8 (13 March 2024) (Gageler CJ; Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal law – Sentencing – Appeal against sentence – Minimum sentences – Where s 16AAB of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), inserted by Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Act 2020 (Cth) ("Amendment Act"), provided for minimum terms of imprisonment, subject to limited exceptions, for offences – Where offences included s 474.22A(1) of Criminal Code (Cth) ("Possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service") – Where elements of offence included, relevantly, "the person has possession or control of material" and "the person used a carriage service to obtain or access the material" – Where transitional provision in Amendment Act required "relevant conduct ... engaged in" to take place on or after commencement of amendments, including insertion of s 16AAB – Whether minimum sentence provides yardstick for calculation of appropriate penalty in addition to restricting sentencing power – Whether "relevant conduct" concerns only "conduct" element of offence or also "circumstance in which conduct ... occurs".

    Words and phrases – "appropriate penalty", "appropriate term of imprisonment", "child sexual abuse offence", "conduct", "double function", "engaged in", "relevant conduct", "restriction on power", "sentencing", "sentencing discretion", "statutory minimum sentence", "yardstick".
  • Redland City Council v Kozik [2024] HCA 7 (13 March 2024) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Jagot JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Statutes – Construction – Statutory debt – Local government – Special rates and charges – Where appellant empowered by Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) ("Act") to levy special rates and charges in respect of rateable land – Where appellant purported to levy special charges on respondents' land – Where special charges levied pursuant to invalid resolutions – Where respondents paid special charges contained in rate notices – Where regulations made pursuant to Act provided for return of special rates or charges levied on land to which special rates or charges did not apply – Whether provision in regulations providing for return of special charges applicable where resolution levying special rates invalid.

    Restitution – Unjust enrichment – Defence of good consideration – Where respondents paid special charges to appellant under mistake of law – Where appellant spent funds levied on works conducted on waterways adjacent to respondents' land – Where appellant statutorily obliged to conduct relevant works – Whether appellant had defence to respondents' claim for restitution.

    Words and phrases – "benefit", "failure of consideration", "good consideration", "local government", "mistake of law", "money had and received", "recipient not unjustly enriched", "regulations", "restitution", "special rates and charges", "statutory construction", "statutory debt", "unjust enrichment".
  • Lesianawai v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 6 (06 March 2024) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Edelman, Gleeson and Beech‑jones JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Immigration – Visas – Cancellation of visa – Where plaintiff found guilty of robbery offences when under 16 years of age before Children's Court of New South Wales – Where plaintiff committed subsequent robbery offences as adult – Where plaintiff's visa cancelled under s 501(2) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where delegate of Minister took into account "National Police Certificate" that listed robbery offences committed by plaintiff when under 16 years of age – Where "National Police Certificate" described plaintiff as being "convicted" of offences dealt with by Children's Court – Where delegate advised that plaintiff had "serious convictions" from 13 years of age – Where, at time of offending, s 14(1)(a) of Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) prohibited Children's Court from proceeding to, or recording, any conviction if child was under 16 years of age – Where s 85ZR(2)(b) of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) provided that where, under a State law, a person is, in particular circumstances or for a particular purpose, taken never to have been convicted of an offence, the person shall be taken in any State, in corresponding circumstances or for a corresponding purpose, by any Commonwealth authority in that State never to have been convicted of that offence – Whether delegate erroneously took into account matters precluded by ss 85ZR(2)(b) and 85ZS(1)(d)(ii) of Crimes Act by considering the offences committed by plaintiff when under 16 years of age – Whether delegate's decision affected by jurisdictional error.

    Words and phrases – "conviction", "criminal history", "finding of guilt", "for any purpose", "jurisdictional error", "materiality", "proceeding to conviction", "recording of conviction", "taken to be", "visa cancellation".
  • Xerri v The King [2024] HCA 5 (06 March 2024) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal law – Sentence – Calculation – Statutory interpretation – Maximum penalty – Persistent child sexual abuse offence – Where s 66EA of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) came into effect from 1 December 2018 with maximum penalty of life imprisonment – Where previous s 66EA of Crimes Act provided for maximum penalty of 25 years – Where appellant pleaded guilty to offence of being an adult who had maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with child – Where appellant sentenced under current s 66EA to eight years imprisonment – Where maximum penalty of life imprisonment served as "valuable guidepost" in sentencing – Where appellant's offending occurred prior to commencement of current s 66EA and appellant pleaded guilty after current s 66EA commenced – Whether replacement of s 66EA of Crimes Act constituted new offence or increase in penalty for "offence" which already existed for purposes of s 19 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ("Procedure Act") – Meaning of word "offence" in s 19 of Procedure Act – Where retrospective operation of s 66EA offence – Whether maximum penalty for offence committed by appellant remained 25 years imprisonment by operation of s 19 of Procedure Act – Whether significant differences between former and current s 66EA of Crimes Act such that they are not same offence.

    Words and phrases – "child sexual abuse", "differences of substance", "increased penalty", "life imprisonment", "maximum penalty", "new offence", "offence", "persistent sexual abuse of a child", "retrospective", "retrospective offence", "sentence".
  • Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd v BBC Chartering Carriers GmbH & Co KG [2024] HCA 4 (14 February 2024) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Statutes – Construction – Where Sch 1A of Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth) contained amended Hague-Visby Rules (the "Australian Hague Rules") – Where Art 3(8) of Australian Hague Rules provided that any clause in contract for carriage of goods by sea relieving or lessening carrier's liability for loss or damage to goods otherwise than as provided for in Australian Hague Rules shall be void – Where arbitration clause in bill of lading provided for resolution of disputes between carrier and shipper by arbitration in London under English law – Where arbitration commenced – Where shipper commenced proceedings in Federal Court of Australia and sought to restrain arbitration – Where carrier sought stay of Federal Court proceedings in favour of arbitration – Where carrier undertook to admit in London arbitration that Australian Hague Rules as applied under Australian law were to apply in arbitration – Where Federal Court made declaration by consent to similar effect – Whether arbitration clause in bill of lading rendered inoperative by Art 3(8) – Whether conduct of arbitration would relieve or lessen carrier's liability – Whether carrier's undertaking and Federal Court's declaration should be taken into account – Proper approach to standard of proof under Art 3(8).

    Words and phrases – "arbitration", "arbitration clause", "Australian Hague Rules", "balance of probabilities", "burden of proof", "carrier's liability", "contract of carriage of goods by sea", "declaration", "declaration by consent", "foreign arbitration", "lessen the carrier's liability", "liability would be relieved or lessened", "ordinary civil standard of proof", "standard of proof", "undertaking".
  • The King v Rohan (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 3 (14 February 2024) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Edelman, Gleeson and Jagot JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Criminal liability – Statutory complicity – Where s 324(1) of Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) provided, "if an offence ... is committed, a person who is involved in the commission of the offence is taken to have committed the offence" – Where s 323(1)(c) of Crimes Act provided person is "involved in the commission of an offence" if person "enters into an agreement, arrangement or understanding with another person to commit the offence" – Where respondent convicted of offences of supplying drug of dependence to a child and sexual penetration of a child under 12 on basis of ss 323(1)(c) and 324(1) – Where prosecution relevantly alleged respondent and two co‑accused entered into agreement, arrangement or understanding to supply cannabis to two complainants (aged 11 and 12), and then sexually penetrate complainant (aged 11) – Where element of supply offence that child in fact be under 18 years of age – Where element of sexual penetration offence that child in fact be under 12 years of age – Where knowledge of age not an element of either offence – Whether prosecution required to prove that accused knew, at time of entering agreement, ages of complainants or that complainants were under specified age – Whether substantial miscarriage of justice resulted from failure to direct jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that parties to agreement knew ages of complainants – Whether fault element in Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473 applicable to s 323(1)(c) – Whether prosecution required to prove that accused knew or believed, at time of entering into agreement, essential facts that made conduct an offence, where knowledge or belief not an element of the offence itself.

    Words and phrases – "accessorial liability", "agreement", "agreement, arrangement or understanding", "agreement to commit an offence", "complicity", "derivative liability", "essential facts", "group activity", "involved in the commission of an offence", "joint criminal enterprise", "primary liability", "statutory complicity".
  • Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2 (07 February 2024) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Edelman, Gleeson and Jagot JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Immigration – Visas – Application for visa – Where delegate of Minister refused to grant visa under s 501 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as plaintiff did not pass character test and considerations favouring non‑refusal outweighed by considerations favouring refusal – Where delegate was required to comply with Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA ("Direction 90") in determining whether to refuse to grant visa – Where Direction 90 required decision‑maker to take into account considerations, including protection of Australian community (para 8.1), any engagement in family violence by non‑citizens (para 8.2), best interests of minor children affected by decision (para 8.3), and expectations of Australian community (para 8.4) – Whether delegate failed to comply with para 8.3(1) of Direction 90 or failed to inquire about status of minor child in circumstances where it was legally unreasonable not to do so – Whether para 8.2 of Direction 90 permitted delegate to give weight to family violence considerations in circumstances where delegate had given weight to considerations under other paragraphs – Whether para 8.2 invalid – Whether delegate misapplied para 8.4 of Direction 90.

    Words and phrases – "direction", "double counting", "failure to consider", "failure to inquire", "illegitimate purpose", "irrational, illogical, or legally unreasonable", "legally unreasonable", "primary consideration", "relevant considerations", "relevant, legitimate, and non‑punitive", "repetitious weighing".
  • Harvey v Minister for Primary Industry and Resources [2024] HCA 1 (07 February 2024) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Native title – Native title rights – Mining – Mineral leases – Where s 24MD(6B) of Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) entitles native title holders to certain procedural rights in relation to future acts that, relevantly, involve "the creation or variation of a right to mine for the sole purpose of the construction of an infrastructure facility ... associated with mining" – Where Mount Isa Mines Limited carries on mining enterprise in Northern Territory – Where Mount Isa Mines Limited applied for mineral lease ("ML 29881") under Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT) to construct Dredge Spoil Emplacement Area ("DSEA") on pastoral lease – Where first and second appellants native title holders in respect of land comprising pastoral lease – Where third appellant relevant prescribed body corporate for the purposes of Native Title Act – Whether appellants entitled to procedural rights in s 24MD(6B) of Native Title Act – Whether proposed grant of ML 29881 constitutes creation of right to mine for sole purpose of construction of infrastructure facility associated with mining pursuant to s 24MD(6B)(b) of Native Title Act – Whether definition of "infrastructure facility" in s 253 of Native Title Act exhaustive – Whether DSEA infrastructure facility.

    Words and phrases – "associated with mining", "definition", "dredging", "exhaustive", "explanatory memorandum", "extrinsic materials", "future act", "includes any of the following", "infrastructure facility", "mine", "mineral lease", "mining", "mining lease", "mining operations", "mining tenement", "native title holders", "ordinary meaning", "right to mine", "right to negotiate", "sole purpose", "statutory interpretation".

Supreme Court of Tasmania – Full Court [TASFC]

  • Olympus Superannuation Fund (Tas) Pty Ltd v Recorder of Titles [2023] TASFC 6 (08 December 2023) (Wood J, Pearce J, Brett J)
    Catchwords:
    Real Property – Torrens title – Amendment or variation of title record – Extent of Recorder's power – Whether Recorder authorised under s139 to correct an error resulting from an earlier correction – Recorder may exercise the power under s 139 from time to time as occasion may require.
  • CJ v The Secretary of the Department for Education, Children and Young [2023] TASFC 5 (13 October 2023) (Pearce, Geason and Jago JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Family Law and Child Welfare – Child welfare under State or Territory jurisdiction and legislation – Children

    in need of protection – Proceedings related to care and protection – Applications – Application for

    revocation of care and protection order made – Need to demonstrate change in relevant circumstances.
  • TT-Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows [2023] TASFC 4 (03 July 2023) (Estcourt J; Martin and Porter AJJ)
    Catchwords:
    Animals – Prevention of cruelty to animals – Offences – Offence to use a method of management of animals reasonably likely to result in unreasonable and unjustifiable pain or suffering – Charge relating to transport of horses contained in a trailer within a ship's hold –Allegations that the method of management included failures to take certain measures – Where legislation imposed general duty on persons with care and control of animals to take all reasonable measures to ensure their welfare – To the extent a method of management includes omissions, the omitted measures must be reasonable ones to have been taken in the circumstances.
  • Bullard v Tasmanian Industrial Commission [2023] TASFC 3 (15 June 2023) (Geason J; Marshall and Porter AJJ)
    Catchwords:
    Administrative law – Administrative tribunals – Generally – Fraud perpetrated on tribunal – Review of State Service action by industrial tribunal – Employee suspended on full pay pending investigation into conduct – Where suspension on full pay terminated and salary not paid – Where applicant for review failed to put material information before tribunal – Where respondent knowingly failed to remedy deficiency – Tribunal unable to properly exercise its jurisdiction – Application for judicial review
  • Casimaty v Hazell Bros Group Pty Ltd [2023] TASFC 2 (04 May 2023) (Pearce, Brett and Geason JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Constitutional Law – The non-judicial organs of Government – The legislature – General matters – Privileges

    – Privilege of parliamentary debates and proceedings – States – Report of a parliamentary committee a

    precondition of commencement of public works – Whether parliamentary privilege precludes the admission and consideration of the committee's report by a court – Whether the prevention of works in

Supreme Court of Tasmania – Court of Criminal Appeal [TASCCA]

  • Attorney-General's Reference No 1 of 2022 [2024] TASCCA 2 (27 February 2024) (Pearce J; Martin AJ)
    Catchwords:
    Firearms – Offences – Firearms Act 1996 (Tas) – Trafficking in firearms contrary to s 110A – Section 110A creates a conclusive presumption which may not be rebutted.
  • Banfield v Tasmania [2024] TASCCA 1 (01 February 2024) (Wood, Estcourt and Jago JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – No specific error alleged – One count of robbery involving theft of jewellery from fashion boutique and violence involving punching and biting complainant – 2 years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 14 months to be served cumulatively to current term not manifestly excessive.
  • Spaulding v Tasmania [2023] TASCCA 15 (14 December 2023) (Blow CJ, Pearce J, Martin AJ)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence – Appeal dismissed – Assault – Circumstantial evidence – Whether any inference consistent with innocence reasonably open.
  • Standen v The King [2023] TASCCA 13 (15 November 2023) (Pearce and Jago JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Other matters – Error of fact material to sentence – Sentence imposed on mistaken number of child abuse images accessed.
  • Donoghue v State of Tasmania [2023] TASCCA 12 (12 October 2023) (Estcourt, Geason and Jago JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Burglary – Stealing – Two counts of unlawfully setting fire to property – Destruction of property valued at $588,574 carried out on behalf of another and motivated by financial gain – Sentence of three years' imprisonment with eighteen month non-parole period not
  • JD v Tasmania [2023] TASCCA 11 (10 October 2023) (Estcourt, Pearce and Jago JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Miscarriage of justice – Particular circumstances not amounting to miscarriage – Improper admission or rejection of evidence – Tendency evidence – Evidence of applicant’s tendency to have a sexual interest in young or adolescent females within his care – Probative value of tendency evidence significant – Risk of jury improperly using or giving disproportionate weight to tendency evidence sufficiently addressed by trial judge’s directions – Probative value outweighed danger of unfair prejudice – No miscarriage of justice.
  • Gesler v State of Tasmania [2023] TASCCA 10 (20 September 2023) (Estcourt and Geason JJ; Porter AJ)
    Catchwords:
    Evidence – Admissibility – Hearsay – Exceptions: First-hand hearsay – Hearsay evidence of previous representations may be admitted if representor not available to give evidence – Where witness refused to give evidence – Person taken to be unavailable if all reasonable steps have been taken to compel person to give evidence – Meaning of "reasonable steps" taken.
  • Director of Public Prosecutions v BRL [2023] TASCCA 8 (01 September 2023) (Blow CJ; Wood and Estcourt JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Indecent assault, rape and possessing, distributing and producing child exploitation material – Mother performing sexual acts upon infant sons and selling videos of those acts and others – Sentence of 4 years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years – Whether manifestly inadequate.
  • Maher v State of Tasmania [2023] TASCCA 7 (25 July 2023) (Estcourt, Brett and Geason JJ)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal Law – Appeal and New Trial - Miscarriage of Justice - Particular circumstances not amounting to miscarriage - Improper admission or rejection of evidence - Admission of parts of record of interview and the opinion evidence of forensic pathologist admitted over objection - no miscarriage of justice.
  • SRR v Tasmania [2023] TASCCA 6 (08 June 2023) (Wood and Jago JJ; Marshall AJ)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal law- Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Persistent sexual abuse of a child - Father indecently assaulted and raped young daughter over period of approximately 10 months - Numerous aggravating factors – Sentence of thirteen years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years not manifestly excessive.

Supreme Court of Tasmania – [TASSC]

  • TM Cladding Pty Ltd v Murfet [2024] TASSC 15 (27 March 2024) (Brett J)
    Catchwords:
    Corporations – Winding up – Liquidators – Resignation – Exercise of discretion to fill a vacancy in the office of liquidator pursuant to s 473A(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Leave granted under s
  • MRTC v Tasmania Police [2024] TASSC 14 (27 March 2024) (Brett J)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal Law – Sentence – Sentencing of juveniles – Relevant factors – General principles – Objectives and principles under Youth Justice Act 1997 – Court required to specify earliest release date for operative
  • Papoutsakis v Tenbensel [2024] TASSC 13 (21 March 2024) (Brett J)
    Catchwords:
    Appeal and New Trial - Procedure - Tasmania – Time for appeal - Extension of time - Appeal of refusal for

    leave to file writs - Failed to file within specified time – Whether applicant has fairly arguable case -
  • Venture Spirits Pty Ltd v Adjudicate Today Pty Ltd [2024] TASSC 12 (20 March 2024) (Brett J)
    Catchwords:
    Contracts – Building, engineering and related contracts – Remuneration – Statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – Adjudication of payment claims – Registration of adjudicator's determination as judgement – Prosecutor seeking relief similar to certiorari to quash determination – Separate application to set aside statutory demand – Statutory requirement for payment into court of adjudicated amount – Impact of proceedings on legislative policy – Grant of stay of principal proceedings pending payment into court of adjudicated amount.
  • Auksorius v Public Trustee [2024] TASSC 11 (19 March 2024) (Blow CJ)
    Catchwords:
    Succession – Making of a will – Testamentary instruments – Testamentary character – Particular documents –
  • Cai v Launceston City Council [2024] TASSC 10 (15 March 2024) (Estcourt J)
    Catchwords:
    Administrative law – Judicial review – Grounds of review – Error of law – Tribunal's interpretation of words in a planning scheme – "directly associated with" and "a subservient part of" – Ordinary and grammatical meaning in light of context and purpose of scheme to be applied – Correct test identified by Tribunal – The question of whether the test was met by the evidence is a question of fact and beyond the scope of an appeal under s 136 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020 – Ground of appeal dismissed.
  • Lakaev v McConkey [2024] TASSC 8 (01 March 2024) (Estcourt J)
    Catchwords:
    Defamation – Justification – Truth – Substantial truth and contextual truth – Defendant admitted numerous imputations against the plaintiff including that she was a cult leader, had wrongfully indoctrinated people and was a criminal – Defendant pleaded justification pursuant to s 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 – Plaintiff found to be untruthful and her witnesses to be in the main partial and lacking credit – Defendant found to be honest and reliable and her witnesses independent and credible – Defendant's case supported by extensive documentary evidence – All imputations established as substantially true thus attracting a defence of justification – Judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff.
  • Ding v De Wit [2024] TASSC 6 (01 March 2024) (Blow CJ)
    Catchwords:
    Courts and Judges – Courts – Effect of judge becoming unavailable to sit – Absence of judge – Making of necessary determination by another judge.
  • Hefny v Barnes [2024] TASSC 9 (27 February 2024) (Martin AJ)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal law – Appeal and new trial – Procedure – Notices of appeal – Time for appeal and extension thereof – Prior dismissal of notice of review by single judge and upheld by Full Court – Applicant filed subsequent notice of review seeking a hearing de novo – Applicant sought extension of time on subsequent notice – Hearing de novo not in the interests of justice – Application for extension of time dismissed.
  • Minic v Minic [2024] TASSC 7 (27 February 2024) (Martin AJ)
    Catchwords:
    Criminal Law – Procedure – Persons entitled to conduct prosecution – Leave sought to file indictment against former spouse – Director of Public Prosecutions empowered to discontinue proceedings if leave granted – No reasonable prospects of successful prosecution – Leave to file an indictment refused.