• Headnote
  • Posts
  • Anthony Whealy KC weighs in on Sofronoff saga

Anthony Whealy KC weighs in on Sofronoff saga

Commenting on recent findings of the ACT Integrity Commission Anthony Whealy has said "the consequences of this shameful episode are serious". Separately Professor Gabrielle Appleby has commented on the re-embrace of Dyson Heydon by the legal profession.

March 20, 2025

Was this email forwarded to you?

Sign up for our free daily email newsletter at headnote.com.au

Daily wrap  

  • Former judges were once considered the bastion of integrity. The Sofronoff findings have upended that | Anthony Whealy | The Guardian
     

  • A kick in the guts for women: The legal profession’s re-embrace of a disgraced judge - Professor Gabrielle Appleby [The Age Paywall]

    What message does it send when judges and lawyers lionise former High Court judge Dyson Heydon, who was found to have sexually harassed a number of associates and who drove women from the profession?
     

  • Next month the High Court is hearing a special leave application in the Katy Perry trademark case - Business List SLA 11 April Sydney
     

  • Element Zero Pty Ltd v Fortescue Ltd [2025] FCA 206

    [15] … Further, the judgments of Justices of the High Court sitting outside of the appellate structure of the system of courts in Australia that deal with these issues, although persuasive, are not binding on courts that are lower in the judicial hierarchy: Bone v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) [1972] 2 NSWLR 651 at 654 per Jacobs P, Reynolds JA agreeing and 664 per Hope JA; see also Fieldhouse v Commissioner of Taxation [1989] FCA 586; 25 FCR 187 at 223-224 where Hill J’s explanation of the position is not detracted from by the fact of his Honour’s dissent in the result. The statements in the dissenting judgment in International Finance Trust v NSW Crime Commission are also not binding, although they too deserve great respect: Federation Insurance Ltd v Wasson [1987] HCA 34; 163 CLR 303 at 314. It is therefore to intermediate appellate court authority that one has to turn for binding precedent.
     

  • Lusty (Examiner) v ITT24 [2025] FCA 141

    [1] The respondent is charged with two charges of contempt of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC). By the first of those charges, it is alleged that the respondent, when appearing as a witness at an examination before the applicant, refused to take an oath or affirmation when required to do so under s 28 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (ACC Act), contrary to s 34A(a)(i) of that Act. By the second charge it is alleged that at the same examination, the respondent refused or failed to answer a question that the applicant required him to answer, contrary to s 34A(a)(ii) of the ACC Act.
     

  • Legal GenAI Conversations Series – Legal leaders in the AI era – Are we there yet? - YouTube

    On 18 March 2025, in the second session in CLI’s Legal GenAI Conversations Series Terri Mottershead was joined by three law firm leaders from Australia and New Zealand to discuss this and much more in Legal leaders in the AI era – Are we there yet? Simon Newcomb, Partner, Clayton Utz; Dan Proietto, Chief Executive Partner, Lander & Rogers; Prue Tyler, Founder and Director, SHIFT Advisory Limited
     

  • Greenpeace to pay $1 billion over Standing Rock oil pipeline protests, jury finds - ABC News
     

Like our free newsletter? The best way to support us is to tell your colleagues about our newsletter!

We love feedback - [email protected]