ACTSC

AcronymDefinition
ACTSCAustralian Capital Territory Supreme Court
References in periodicals archive ?
(104) See Smith (2010) 41 WAR 217, 233 [75] (Buss JA); Central Goldfields Shire v Haley (2009) 24 VR 378, 381 [5]-[6] (Neave JA); Victorian WorkCover Authority v Jones LangLasalle (Vic) Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 412 (12 September 2012) [5] (Beach J); Georges v Victoria [2013] VCC 1235 (19 September 2013) [14] (Parrish J); Brozinic v ISS Facility Services Australia Ltd [2014] ACTSC 8 (7 February 2014) [51]-[52] (Master Mossop).
[2011] ACTSC 202 (16 December 2011) [48] (Besanko J); Brozinic v Iss
(154) RvSP [No 2] [2006] ACTSC 78 (12 July 2006); Re KMV [2003] QMHC 005 (5 August 2003); Karyn Louise Kemps case; R v McAvoy [2003] SASC 225 (23 July 2003).
(191) See, eg, R v Kain [2009] ACTSC 103 (26 August 2009) [21] (Gray J); Sleiman v Murray (2009) 231 FLR 224, 228 [20] (Refshauge J); R v Austin [No 2] (2010) 5 ACTLR 70, 73 [3] (Refshauge l).
(52) See, eg, Re an Application Pursuant to the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1997 [2000] ACTSC 39 (5 May 2000) [14] (Crispin J); Re Mark (2004) 31 Fam LR 162, 174 (Brown J).
(124) At the time of writing, only one declaration of incompatibility had been made in the ACT (on 19 November 2010) in more than six years of operation of the HRA (ACT): see Re Islam [2010] ACTSC 147 (19 November 2010).
(200) The prediction that a trial judge could give both warnings has been realised in a recent judge-only trial in the Australian Capital Territory: see R v DF [2010] ACTSC 31 (15 April 2010) [254], [267] (Penfold J).
See also Paramasivam v Flynn [1998] ACTSC 10 (Unreported, Gallop J, 2 March 1998) [36].
See also R v Esposito (1998) 45 NSWLR 442, 458-0 (Wood CJ); Moffatt v The Queen (2000) 112 A Crim R 201,209 (Wood C J); R v Taylor [1999] ACTSC 47 (Unreported, Higgins J, 26 May 1999) [23]-[32]; R v Munce [2001] NSWSC 1072 (Unreported, McClellan J, 14 November 2001) [22]-[29]; R v Waters (2002) 129 A Crim R 115, 122-5 (Gray J); R v Fischetti [2003] ACTSC 9 (Unreported, Gray J, 26 February 2003) [7]-[10].
(201) The law in Australia appears to have diverged from that in England by asserting that a duty of loyalty, which may be fiduciary in nature, survives the termination of the retainer: see Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd (2001) 4 VR 501; Wagdy Hanna & Associates Pty Ltd v National Library of Australia [2004] ACTSC 75 (Unreported, Higgins CJ, 1 September 2004) [31]-[42]; McVeigh v Linen House Pty Ltd [1999] 3 VR 394; Wan v McDonald (1992) 33 FCR 491, 512-13 (Burchett J); cf Belan v Casey [2002] NSWSC 58 (Unreported, Young CJ in Eq, 4 February 2002) [21].
However, no reveal is available on the basis of credibility findings unless it was wrong in law for the trial judge to rely on credibility as the basis for the verdict: see, eg, State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588, 620-2 (Kirby J); Williams v Minister, Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (1999) 25 Fam LR 86 (Supreme Court of New South Wales); Williams v Minister, Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 [2000] Aust Torts Reports [paragraph] [paragraph] 81-578, 64 136 (Spigelman CJ, Sheller and Heydon JJA) (New South Wales Court of Appeal); Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees [No 2] Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424, 437-8 (Drummond, Mansfield and Allsop JJ); Tapp v Thamer [2002] ACTSC 86 (Unreported, Miles CJ, 29 August 2002).
(40) DPP v Nicholson (1997) 27 MVR 120; R v Williams (Unreported, Supreme Court of Tasmania, Court of Criminal Appeal, Neasy, Cox and Underwood JJ, 14 May 1985); R v Wright (1991) 60 A Crim R 215; R v Hinton (1995) 128 FLR 139; R v Taylor [1999] ACTSC 47 (Unreported, Higgins J, 26 May 1999); R v Malloy [1999] ACTSC 118 (Unreported, Crispin J, 9 November 1999).