On Friday, 10 May 2013 the High Court granted special leave to appeal in five cases.
In Comcare v PVYW the High Court will revisit the question of whether an employee injured whilst engaged in private activities is able to recover workers compensation. The respondent was required by her employer (a Commonwealth government agency) to travel to a country town. She stayed at a motel booked by her employer. While staying at the motel she arranged to meet a male friend and, after dining together, they went to her motel room. The respondent was injured while engaging in sexual intercourse when a glass light fitting above the bed was pulled from its mount and fell on her, causing injuries to her nose and mouth. She also suffered a psychological injury as a result of the incident. The issue for the High Court is whether or not the injury can be said to be “arising our of, or in the course of, her employment”.
Reproduction was the subject of a second grant of special leave in Clark v Macourt. This is a case about the appropriate measure of damages for breach of warranty in a contract for the sale of a business which sale included the transfer of title to straws of semen for use in fertility treatment.
Special leave was also granted in Bugmy v The Queen, an appeal in relation to sentence from the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in which the NSWCCA allowed a Crown appeal against sentence. The appeal raises questions about the manner in which the Court of Criminal Appeal, having identified error on the part of the sentencing judge, then went about re-determining the sentence.
In Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) the High Court will consider the power of a liquidator of a managed investment scheme to disclaim leases granted to the members of the scheme.
Finally, in Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak the Court will consider the extent to which a medical panel appointed under a statutory accident compensation scheme is required to give reasons for the opinions expressed by it, and the extent to which inadequacy of reasons is amenable to judicial review.