There are three cases listed for hearing this week in the
High Court of Australia.
On Wednesday, 2 October 2013 the
Court will hear argument in BCM v The Queen. In substance this is an
appeal in respect of a verdict alleged to have been unreasonable and unsupported
by the evidence. However, it raises an
important question of law, namely, the adequacy of the reasons given by the
Queensland Court of Appeal in finding that the verdict was not unreasonable,
and the obligation of an intermediate appellate court to explain its own
independent assessment of the evidence.
In this case, in which the appellant was charged with three counts of
indecent assault against his granddaughter and in which there were numerous
inconsistencies in the versions of events given by her to her mother and to
police, the Queensland Court of Appeal discussed the evidence in only 11
paragraphs.
On Thursday the Court will hear
argument in Daly v Thiering. This case raises a question of statutory
construction of considerable financial interest to the compulsory third party
motor vehicle insurance industry in NSW, but is otherwise of no apparent
general importance. Mr Thiering was
rendered a tetraplegic in a motor vehicle accident caused by Mr Daley. Although a participant in the Lifetime Care
and Support Scheme, his mother provides a significant amount of Mr Thiering’s
care. She does this gratuitously and
without compensation from the Lifetime Care and Support Authority even though
the services she is providing, if not provided by her, would be provided
commercially at the expense of the Authority. At common law Mr Thiering would be entitled to
recover from Mr Daley the value of the services provided by his mother, even
though they are provided gratuitously. The issue in the High Court is whether
on the proper construction of section 130A of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Mr Thiering continues to be
entitled to recover damages against Mr Daley (and his third party insurer) for the
past attendant care services provided to him, gratuitously, by his mother.
On Friday the Court will hear
argument in Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd. In this case the Court will consider the
circumstances in which a claim for legal professional privilege over a document
may be waived where the document has been provided to another party in the
course of discovery, as a result of a mistake or as a result of
inadvertence. It will also consider whether
the recipient of such a document may be restrained from using the document,
notwithstanding the waiver.
