Know someone that might be interested in our email newsletter?
Daily wrap
a copy of Raper J’s judgment found here - Shergill v Singh (No 2) [2024] FCA 261
Rich-list Wu family allegedly ‘misled’ the taxman [The Australian paywall]
The rich-list Wu family has been accused of misleading the Australian Taxation Office when they sold their vitamins company Nature’s Care in 2018.
a copy of Thawley J’s judgment found here - Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Wu [2024] FCA 250
Editor’s picks
"All civil and criminal appeals decided by the Full Court in 2022–23 were decided within six months of the hearing of argument, with 44 per cent decided within three months of the hearing".
“Aspects of the Court’s audio-visual systems have come to the end of their useful life. This has started to impact on the Court, with some interruptions to hearings, and limitations on the Court’s capacity to conduct hearings outside of its Canberra courtrooms, or to conduct concurrent hearings in Canberra. It is unfortunate that Australia’s apex court lags behind other international, federal, state and territory courts in terms of its technological capability and basic functionality for courtrooms and hearings. The Court has approached successive Governments for assistance in resolving these issues. It is hoped that government will be able to address this funding issue in the future.”
From housing commission flats to law firm CEO [AFR paywall]
Long-term head of HWL Ebsworth, Juan Martinez, built the nation’s largest legal partnership on the back of hard lessons from a harsh childhood.
Justice Charlesworth will conduct a Judgment hearing in the matter of REX LYALL PATRICK v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA today at 11:00am AEDT. Livestream available here.
Leeming JA at [3] “Following receipt of Stern JA’s reasons in draft, I was persuaded by the conclusion she had reached, but following receipt of Griffiths AJA’s reasons in draft, I found it necessary to review the entirety of the appeal. I am most grateful to both of their Honours, because their divergent approaches have assisted me to identify which of the mass of arguments assembled in favour of each competing construction carry the greatest weight.”
“HER HONOUR: Remain standing, please. Are you Kellan Reynolds?
ACCUSED: I'm known to contract under that name.
HER HONOUR: Mr Reynolds, if you are Mr Reynolds, you and I have played this ridiculous game before. If you are not going to answer appropriately to the court, I cannot take your appearance as given. You will be – whoever you will be asked to step back and I will issue an arrest warrant for that person's arrest. I will ask you once more.
ACCUSED: If you want to arrest that person, ma'am, I will put the person right here for you to arrest.
HER HONOUR: I will ask you once more. Are you Kellan Reynolds?
ACCUSED: No. I am the occupant of the office of executor for Kellan John Reynold's estate.
HER HONOUR: Please remove yourself from the bar table. Please remove yourself from the bar table.
ACCUSED: You're removing the occupant of the of the office of executor for the Kellan John Reynolds estate.”
Credit - u/theangryantipodean on Reddit
(Unless this gets derailed by a cleaner tidying up Lee J's office who notices that he recently googled 'how often do rape complainants lie?')
— #Jeremy Gans (#@jeremy_gans)
9:17 AM • Mar 20, 2024
What did you think of today's newsletter?
For enquiries contact [email protected]