Category Archives: LAW FIRM

Re General Newspapers Pty Limited; Double Bay Newspapers Pty Limited and Brehmer Fairfax Pty Limited T/As Hannanprint v Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation Limited [1993] FCA 5

Re General Newspapers Pty Limited; Double Bay Newspapers Pty Limited and Brehmer Fairfax Pty Limited T/As Hannanprint v Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation Limited [1993] FCA 5 (15 January 1993).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1993/5.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Appointment of Queens Counsel

ON 14 DECEMBER 1992, Queens Counsel were appointed in New South Wales for the last time.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58

ON 19 NOVEMBER 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175 CLR 479 (19 November 1992).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/58.html

Dr Rogers had performed surgery on Whitaker’s right eye, which was almost blind. The surgery should have restored her sight, but instead became blind in the left eye when she suffered sympathetic opthalmia. Whilst the risk was remote, Dr Rogers was held to be negligent in failing to warn Whitaker of the risk.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Dietrich v R [1992] HCA 57

ON 13 NOVEMBER 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Dietrich v R [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292 (13 November 1992).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/57.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills [1992] HCA 46

ON 30 SEPTEMBER 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills [1992] HCA 46; (1992) 177 CLR 1 (30 September 1992).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/46.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd & New South Wales v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45

ON 30 SEPTEMBER 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd & New South Wales v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45; (1992) 177 CLR 106 (30 September 1992).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/45.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Greiner v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1992) 28 NSWLR 125

ON 21 AUGUST 1992, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Greiner v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1992) 28 NSWLR 125.

Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34

ON 27 JULY 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34; (1992) 174 CLR 509 (27 July 1992).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/34.html

The case concerns the use of the court’s power to grant a stay of proceedings when the proceedings have been used for an improper purpose.

After being dismissed from the University of Newcastle, Dr Spautz threatened, instituted and maintained private prosecutions of charges of conspiracy and criminal defamation against former colleagues including Professor Williams and others (“the appellants”).

The appellants obtained a stay of proceedings order from the Supreme Court of NSW. The trial judge found that the proceedings had been brought for the improper purpose of “exerting pressure upon the University of Newcastle to reinstate him and/or to agree to a favourable settlement of his wrongful dismissal case”.

The NSW Court of Appeal quashed the orders, holding that the appellants could receive a fair trial and that there was no evidence of any misconduct in the way the prosecution was conducted.

The High Court allowed an appeal, setting aside the Court of Appeal’s decision, declaring that the prosecutions were an abuse of process and ordering that the prosecutions be stayed permanently.

The decision provides:

  • Australian courts have the inherent jurisdiction to stay criminal and civil proceedings.
  • The court may grant stays in (1) proceedings in which a party may not receive a fair trial and (2) proceedings brought for an improper purpose.
  • Before granting a stay for improper purpose, the court is not required to satisfy itself that there will be an unfair trial if the prosecution is not stopped: at 519-520.
  • Proceedings may be stayed notwithstanding that the prosecution has a prima facie case: at 522.
  • The court must have the power to act effectively within its jurisdiction, even if it means refraining from exercising their jurisdiction as it is in the public interest to ensure public confidence that the processes are used fairly and not for oppression or injustice.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (“Mabo case”) [1992] HCA 23

ON 3 JUNE 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (“Mabo case”) [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1 (3 June 1992).

Upon the British Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty over parts of Australia since 1788, aboriginal native title survived and as such the doctrine of terra nullius does not apply to Australia.

Where validly asserted, native title entitles its holders as against the world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the particular land over which the title is claimed. It is ascertained according to the laws and customs of it’s indigenous inhabitants who have a connexion with the land through continued use and enjoyment by the group or clan since the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty.

Native title is inalienable but is extinguished if the clan or group ceases to have a connexion with the land, or by a valid exercise of government power under the laws of the Commonwealth.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Domican v R [1992] HCA 13

ON 6 MAY 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Domican v R [1992] HCA 13; (1992) 173 CLR 555 (6 May 1992).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/173clr555.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088