This week the High Court is hearing argument in four cases.
On Tuesday, 1 April 2014 the Court
heard argument in ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd v Goudappel, an appeal from the NSW Court of Appeal in relation to the transitional
operation of certain amendments to the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
Its general importance lies in whatever it might say about the correct
approach to the construction of provisions in an Act authorizing the making of
regulations that have a transitional operation and which themselves amend the
operation of the Act.
On Wednesday, 2 April 2014 the Court heard argument in Sidhu v Van Dyke. In this case Van Dyke claimed that Sidhu, with whom she was in
a romantic and sexual relationship over several years, made clear and
unambiguous promises to her on several occasions that a property known as Oaks
Cottage was her home and that he would transfer it to her (or procure its
transfer to her). She also claimed that she acted reasonably in reliance on
those promises to her detriment, including by performing certain tasks for the
benefit of Sidhu and by remaining in part-time employment. Van Dyke commenced
proceedings claiming an order that Oaks Cottage be transferred to her, or a
declaration recognising her interest in Oaks Cottage by way of constructive
trust or charge, or an order for the payment of equitable compensation to her.
The primary judge held that the effect of the evidence given by Van Dyke during
cross-examination was that it was entirely possible that Van Dyke would
have remained living on the property, carrying out tasks on the property (even
if not to the extent of the work she in fact carried out) and working
part-time, whether or not the promises had been made. According to the primary
judge, that made it impossible to find that she was acting in reliance on the
promises to her detriment. The NSW Court of Appeal, applying a number of
English decisions, held that there was a presumption of reliance which had not
been displaced by Van Dyke’s evidence, and that it was not necessary for the
plaintiff to prove that “but for” the promises she would not have acted in the
way she did; it was sufficient that it was a cause, even if not the sole
cause. In addition, the Court of Appeal held that the measure of compensation
was not the detriment suffered by Van Dyke, rather it was the value of the
unfulfilled promises.
Today the Court will hear argument in Lee v The Queen.
The appellants in this appeal were the unsuccessful appellants in Lee v The
Queen, in which the High Court upheld orders made in favour of the NSW
Crime Commission that the appellants be compulsorily examined under the Criminal
Assets Recovery Act 1990, even though the subject matter of the
examinations overlapped with the subject matter of the criminal
proceedings. In this latest appeal, the Lees challenge the dismissal of
their appeals against conviction by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The
main ground of general importance is the question of whether or not there had
been a miscarriage of justice because a transcript of the evidence given before
the Crime Commission had been released, unlawfully, to the DPP prior to the
trial.
Finally, tomorrow the Court will hear argument in MacarthurCook Fund Management Ltd v TFML Ltd. This case raises a short but very important
question of statutory construction, namely, whether the procedures set out in
Part 5C.6 of the Corporations Act 2001
apply to all methods by which a member of a registered managed investment scheme
ceases to be a member, or whether it only applies where the member voluntarily
seeks the return of that member’s contribution to the scheme.
