Author: Kirstene Groth
-
In R v Willmot (No 2) [1985] 2 Qd R 41, the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether the jury were misdirected on the element of intent in a murder conviction under s 302(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).
-
In R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30, the High Court determined that evidence for a sane automatism defence was improperly excluded at trial, allowing Falconer’s appeal for the wilful murder conviction of her husband.
-
In Stuart v The Queen (1974) 134 CLR 426, the High Court considered constructive murder (also known as felony murder), clarifying that conviction requires proof of an unlawful act endangering life, not intent to kill, leading to the refusal of Stuart’s application.
-
The tort of private nuisance is defined by the High Court in Hargrave v Goldman, per Windeyer J at 60, as ‘an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over, or in connexion, with it.’
-
In CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman [2023] HCA 21, the High Court unanimously held that the employer was not vicariously liable for its employee’s drunken behaviour as it was not within the “course or scope of employment”.
-
In Pearce v The Queen (1998) CLR 610, the defendant was indicted on two charges from a single incident. The High Court held there was no double prosecution, as each offence required proof of a different essential element, but the trial judge erred in sentencing.
-
In Wilson v Ferguson [2015] WASC 15, the Supreme Court of Western Australia held that the defendant breached his obligation of confidence by posting sexually explicit images of the plaintiff on Facebook. The plaintiff was awarded equitable compensation for emotional distress and economic loss.
-
In Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209, the High Court upheld the Queensland Criminal Court of Appeal’s decision that the provocation defence under s 269 did not apply to s 320 (grievous bodily harm) of the Criminal Code (Qld).
-
In this failure to warn case, Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375, the High Court unanimously dismissed the appeal holding that Dr Kam was not liable for Wallace’s neurapraxia, as Wallace would have proceeded with surgery regardless of being warned about the specific risk.
-
In Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621, the High Court upheld the trial judge’s decision that Louth’s actions constituted unconscionable conduct. Louth manipulated Diprose’s “emotional dependency” on her, to acquire property benefiting herself.
