Gageler CJ and Beech-Jones J to be sworn in today - 6 Nov 2023

In the words of the Beatles we don’t care too much for money…

But you know what we do care for? You telling others about our newsletter.

If you get any value from our newsletter could we trouble you to forward to a friend?

Use the link below to earn a reward

Daily wrap  

• Tasmanian Supreme Court judge stood down in relation to 'significant matter'

• Fed Court find domestic employee of former Indian high commissioner forced to work every day for 17.5 hours and paid just $9 per day

  • Judgment found here - Shergill v Singh [2023] FCA 1346

• Australia has no legal obligation to repatriate 31 women and children held in Syrian camp, court rules | Law (Australia) | The Guardian

• NSW to consider action over Catholic church abuse legal tactics | Law (Australia) | The Guardian

• Lisa Wilkinson bill for Sue Chrysanthou at the heart of legal spat | PerthNow

• 'Gone are the days of secret-squirrel organisations': Calls to lift the veil of secrecy over internal police reviews

• OAIC commences Federal Court proceedings against Australian Clinical Labs Limited | OAIC

• Architects of failed housing scheme impacting retirees across the nation face court on criminal charges

• Erin Patterson appears in court charged with murder

• 'Miss him dreadfully': Family sues Calvary Health Care over death of much-loved father, husband and teacher

• Six of seven men found guilty of murder of Jason De Ieso file notice to appeal convictions

• Maules Creek Coal Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2023] NSWCCA 275 - NSW Caselaw

  • 5 judge NSWCCA unanimous decision -
    Leeming, Payne and Kirk JJA, Wilson and Fagan JJ

  • Summary from NSWSC “The Court of Criminal Appeal has granted leave to appeal, but dismissed an appeal brought by Maules Creek Coal against a judge’s decision not to disqualify herself on the grounds of apprehended bias. Maules Creek was prosecuted in proceedings brought by the Environment Protection Agency. During the trial, the judge invited an individual into her chambers based upon a mistake as to her identity. In fact, unbeknownst to the judge, the individual was mentioned in the evidence and was an active public opponent of Maules Creek’s mining activities. The two did not discuss the substance of the case and the trial judge terminated the conversation upon realising the mistake. Sitting as a panel of five judges, the Court found that the interaction did not impair the judge’s ability to bring an impartial mind to the proceedings.”

Editor’s picks

• Swearing in ceremonies of Gageler CJ and Beech-Jones J to be live-streamed on HCA website at 10am and 2:15pm respectively. Link to live-stream here - Ceremonial Sittings Live Stream - High Court of Australia 

• Is a terrorist’s win in the High Court bad for national security? Not necessarily

• Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus’ wife Deborah dies after cancer battle | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site

• Legal professional privilege and communicating with clients - Law Society Journal

• Pioneer Credit kicks off case against PWC in WA Supreme Court | The Market Herald

• Tucker v McKee [2023] FCA 1335

  • Self-represented former lawyer of State Revenue Office of Victoria unsuccessful in application for extension of time in defamation proceedings

• Ex-crypto mogul Sam Bankman-Fried convicted of one of the biggest financial frauds on record

Our newsletter is free. All we ask from you is to spread the word about our newsletter (we’d especially love if you talked about us on your socials - we’re on Linkedin, Instagram and Twitter)!

The Headnote team

For feedback and enquiries - [email protected]