Category Archives: Appeals

Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22 | 30 April 2003

On 30 April 2003, the High Court of Australia delivered Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118; 197 ALR 201; 77 ALJR 989 (30 April 2003).

“Appeal – Rehearing – Review of findings of fact based on trial judge’s assessment of credibility of witnesses – Whether findings inconsistent with incontrovertibly established facts – Power of appellate court to set aside findings.

Appeal – Issue not raised at trial – Where argued that expert report based on matters not proved or supported by the evidence – Whether re-examination of facts by appellate court appropriate.

Appeal – Rehearing – Substitution of judgment of appellate court for that of trial judge – Whether re-trial an appropriate remedy.”

The court affirmed the principles, developed over many previous cases, to be applied by appellant courts when considering whether or not to overturn the findings of credit made by a trial judge.

An appellate court must be satisfied that the findings are “glaringly improbable” or “contrary to compelling inferences”; or that the judge has “failed to use” or “palpably misused” his or her advantage or acted on facts which were inconsistent with the evidence or were glaringly improbable..”

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2003/22.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) [2001] HCA 49

ON 9 AUGUST 2001, the High Court of Australia delivered Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) [2001] HCA 49; 207 CLR 72; 181 ALR 307; 75 ALJR 1342 (9 August 2001).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/68.html

A provision conferring jurisdiction on a court is to be liberally construed (at [11]).

Statutory interpretation should begin with consideration of the text of the legislation. Judicial exposition should not be favoured over analysis of the legislation itself (at [9], [46]-[51]).

A judge has an obligation to state his or her reasons (at [32]-[33]).

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Carson v Legal Services Commissioner [2000] NSWCA 308

ON 3 NOVEMBER 2000, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Carson v Legal Services Commissioner & Anor [2000] NSWCA 308 (3 November 2000).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2000/308.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Fleming v R

ON 11 NOVMBER 1998, the High Court of Australia delivered Fleming v R [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250; 158 ALR 379; 73 ALJR 1 (11 November 1998).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/68.html

The decision concerned the courts duty to give adequate reasons, the degree to which depends on the circumstances of the case.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58

ON 24 OCTOBER 1995, the High Court of Australia delivered Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 (24 October 1995) 

At 179:

“If … an administrative tribunal falls into an error of law which causes it to identify a wrong issue, to ask itself a wrong question, to ignore relevant material, to rely on irrelevant material or, at least in some circumstances, to make an erroneous finding or to reach a mistaken conclusion, and the tribunal’s exercise or purported exercise of power is thereby affected, it exceeds its authority or powers. Such an error of law is jurisdictional error which will invalidate any order or decision of the tribunal which reflects it.”

At 180:

“a failure by an inferior court to take into account some matter which it was, as a matter of law, required to take into account in determining a question within jurisdiction or reliance by such a court upon some irrelevant matter upon which it was, as a matter of law, not entitled to rely in determining such a question will not ordinarily involve jurisdictional error”.

At 177:

A court falls into jurisdictional error “if it mistakenly asserts or denies the existence of jurisdiction or if it misapprehends or disregards the nature or limits of its functions or powers in a case where it correctly recognises that jurisdiction does exist”.

At 177:

Jurisdictional error “is at its most obvious where the inferior court purports to act wholly or partly outside the general area of its jurisdiction in the sense of entertaining a matter or making a decision or order of a kind which wholly or partly lies outside the theoretical limits of its functions and powers”.

At 177-8

Examples of a court acting beyond its jurisdiction by entertaining a matter outside the limits of the court’s functions include:

  • the absence of a jurisdictional fact
  • disregard of a matter that a relevant statute requires to be taken into account or ignored as a condition of jurisdiction.
  • misconstruction of the relevant statute thereby misconceiving the nature of the court’s function or extent of its powers with respect to the particular issue, though the line between jurisdictional error and mere error of exercise of jurisdiction may be difficult to identify.

Legal Helpdesk

1300 00 2088

 

M v R [1994] HCA 63

ON 13 DECEMBER 1994, the High Court of Australia delivered M v R [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487; (1994) 126 ALR 325; (1994) 69 ALJR 83 (13 December 1994).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1994/63.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Bugden v Rogers (1993) Aust Tort Reports 81-246

ON 23 NOVEMBER 1993, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Bugden v Rogers (1993) Aust Tort Reports 81-246.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (“Bond Media case”) [1990] HCA 33

ON 26 JULY 1990, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (“Bond Media case”) [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321 (26 July 1990).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1990/33.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Guildford Four released

ON 19 OCTOBER 1989, the Guildford Four were released from prison after their conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/19/newsid_2490000/2490039.stm

Legal Helpdesk

1300 00 2088

Chamberlain acquittal

ON 15 SEPTEMBER 1988, Michael and Lindy Chamberlain were acquitted by the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal, who quashed their earlier convictions.

Click to access 3.pdf

Lawyers 1300 00 2088