Ryde Municipal Council v Macquarie University [1978] HCA 58; (1978) 139 CLR 633 (19 December 1978).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/139clr633.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Re Ku-Ring-Gai Co-Operative Building Society (No 12) Ltd [1978] FCA 50
Re Ku-Ring-Gai Co-Operative Building Society (No 12) Ltd [1978] FCA 50; (1978) 36 FLR 134 (18 December 1978).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1978/50.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Sankey v Whitlam [1978] HCA 43
ON 9 NOVEMBER 1978, the High Court of Australia delivered Sankey v Whitlam [1978] HCA 43; (1978) 142 CLR 1 (9 November 1978).
1300 00 2088
Housing Commission of NSW v San Sebastian Pty Ltd [1978] HCA 28
ON 25 JULY 1978, the High Court of Australia delivered Housing Commission of NSW v San Sebastian Pty Ltd [1978] HCA 28; (1978) 140 CLR 196 (25 July 1978).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1978/28.html
When valuing land for the purposes of compensation for resumption, no regard is to be given to either the increase or diminution in the value of the land entirely brought about by the resumption.
See also: Pointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Co Ltd v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [1947] AC 565.
1300 00 2088
Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22
ON 14 JUNE 1978, the High Court of Australia delivered Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22; (1978) 141 CLR 54 (14 June 1978).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1978/22.html
A court has the discretion to admit or exclude evidence that is improperly or illegally obtained. In exercising its discretion, the court is to weigh up the competing public requirements of (a) bringing to criminal wrongdoing to conviction and (b) protecting all individuals from unfair and unlawful treatment. The onus is on the accused to prove misconduct and justify the exclusion.
1300 00 2088
Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd [1978] HCA 11
Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd [1978] HCA 11; (1978) 140 CLR 216 (19 April 1978).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/140clr216.html
1300 00 2088
Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd [1978] HCA 11
Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd [1978] HCA 11; (1978) 140 CLR 216 (19 April 1978).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1978/11.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Viro v R [1978] 141 CLR 88
ON 11 APRIL 1978, the High Court of Australia delivered Viro v R [1978] HCA 9; (1978) 141 CLR 88 (11 April 1978).
The High Court held that it is no longer bound by decisions of the Privy Council in the United Kingdom. The court is “pre-eminently equipped to decide what is the law for Australia”.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1978/9.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45
ON 31 AUGUST 1977, the High Court of Australia delivered Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45; (1977) 139 CLR 161 (31 August 1977).
At common law, a person disabled by the fault of another may recover damages for the commercial value of any necessary nursing and domestic services provided gratuitously by a friend or relative.
Legislation such as the Civil Liability Acts modify the common law, limiting the circumstances of entitlement and the amounts that may be claimed.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Driscoll v R [1977] HCA 43
ON 10 AUGUST 1977, the High Court of Australia delivered Driscoll v R [1977] HCA 43; (1977) 137 CLR 517 (10 August 1977).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1977/43.html
The court allowed an appeal of a murder conviction and ordered a retrial, holding that the irregularities in the admission of certain technically admissible evidence caused a miscarriage of justice.
Evidence of the discovery at the accused’s residence of a number of firearms and photographs which were not related to the alleged murder was held to be not probative and therefore inadmissible. The court held that the admission of such evidence could not be defended on “the principle of completeness” (at [533]).
Likewise, evidence of an unrelated incident concerning the use of a firearm was held to be inadmissible for the same reasons (at [535]).
An unsigned written record of interview that was not adopted by the accused (otherwise know as a “police verbal”) was held to be inadmissible, though it could be used to refresh the memories of the police officers who performed the interview(at [541]). The court acknowledged that unsigned records might be fabricated.
A court has a discretion to refuse to receive evidence that would otherwise be admissible on the grounds of unfairness, that is, when the evidence is highly prejudicial but of little value or weight (at [541]). This discretion is general and not limited to evidence of confessions.
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 