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
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
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
ON 7 JULY 1977, the High Court of Australia delivered Heatley v Tasmanian Racing & Gaming Commission [1977] HCA 39; (1977)137 CLR 487 (7 July 1977).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1977/39.html
Heatley had been warned off racecourses in Tasmania without any notice by the Commission of it’s intention to do so. The court held that the Commission was bound by the rules of natural justice to give such notice (unless there was an emergency) and that Heatley should have had the opportunity to make representations before the Commission made it’s decision.
The court found that Heatley, as a member of the public, had a legitimate expectation of being admitted to the racecourse and that for the rules of natural justice to apply, the applicant only needed to have a legitimate expectation rather than a right or interest.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 12 MAY 1977, the House of Lords delivered Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728.
Anns and others were tenants in a block of flats in which were discovered to have structural defects. The council of Merton were responsible for inspecting the depth of the foundations during the construction of the building. The tenants therefore sued the council and the builder for negligence.
The council were held to owe a duty of care to the tenants to ensure the foundations were of the correct depth. The case is historically significant by how it broadened the way in which the courts determined if there was a duty of care.
The court introduced a two stage test to determine the scope of the duty of care, though this test is no longer followed in Australia: see Council of the Shire of Sutherland v Heyman [1985] HCA 41; (1985) 157 CLR 424 (4 July 1985).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1977/4.html
1300 00 2088
ON 28 APRIL 1977, the NSW Parliament enacted the Anti Discrimination Act 1977.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aa1977204
1300 00 2088
ON 4 JUNE 1977, the England and Wales Court of Appeal delivered Miller v Jackson [1977] EWCA Civ 6 (06 April 1977). A cricket club was sued in negligence and nuisance caused by cricket balls landing on a neighbour’s property. Whilst ordering damages, the court refused to grant an injunction to cease the action or further action as the game of cricket itself was considered to be in the public interest.
Lord Denning began with the following:
“In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last seventy years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club-house for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practice while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a Judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there anymore, lie has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket. But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that, when a batsman hits a six, the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at weekends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the Judge to stop the cricket being played. And the Judge, I am sorry to say, feels that the cricket must be stopped: with the consequences, I suppose, that the Lintz cricket-club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.”
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1977/6.html
1300 00 2088
IN THIS DAY in 1977, the Redfern Legal Centre was founded.
ON 25 FEBRUARY 1977, the High Court of Australia delivered Sharman v Evans [1977] HCA 8; (1977) 138 CLR 563 (25 February 1977).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1977/8.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 1977, the Federal Court of Australia began to exercise its jurisdiction under the Commonwealth Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fcoaa1976249
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 