New non-publication order suppressing name of high-profile man accused of rape (6 October 2023)

Was this email forwarded to you?

Sign up for Headnote’s free daily newsletter at Headnote.com.au.

Problems with how this email is displayed? Use the read online link above

Daily wrap

Quiet legal news day yesterday

• Alleged rape victim wants high-profile defendant named under new laws, Toowoomba court hears - ABC News
  

  • Identity of high-profile man accused of Toowoomba rape to remain secret after new interim order | The Guardian
    

• Australia will pay $27m compensation to Indonesians held in adult jails when they were children | The Guardian
  

• Second inquiry launched into Queensland forensic lab amid ongoing concerns over Project 13 - ABC News. The first inquiry was conducted by Walter Sofronoff KC.
  

• Melbourne fraudster Terence 'Rio' Nugara jailed for a decade over property investments scams - ABC News

• J and E Vella Pty Ltd v Hobson - NSW Caselaw
  

  • From NSWSC - “The Court of Appeal (Stern JA, Mitchelmore JA agreeing, Adamson JA dissenting) has dismissed an appeal by J and E Vella Pty Ltd (JEV) and Joseph Vella against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales that Brian Hobson and Brett Soper did not owe fiduciary duties to JEV and Mr Vella. Stern and Mitchelmore JJA rejected challenges to the primary judge’s factual findings on the basis that they were not glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences. It followed that the grounds of appeal relating to breach of fiduciary duty were dismissed.”

• Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd - NSW Caselaw

  • From NSWSC - “The Court of Appeal (Mitchelmore JA, Bell CJ and Adamson JA agreeing) has allowed an appeal from the decision of the District Court to dismiss proceedings brought by Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd (Ranclose) against Leda Holdings Pty Ltd after Ranclose failed to comply with an order to provide security for costs, finding that r 42.21(3) of the UCPR does not authorise a court to make an order dismissing proceedings as against a defendant who has not applied for, and does not have the benefit of, an order under r 42.21(1) of the UCPR.”

Editor’s picks

• High Court Public Lecture 8 November 2023 - Who Decides? What Should be Local and What Should be National in Judicial Review - Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

  • Synopsis - “One question dominates every other in American history: What should be national and what should be local? Over the last 100 years or so, Americans have tended to favor national answers over local ones when it comes to constitutional law. Often with good reasons: dealing with difficult chapters in American history; addressing policy challenges that have emerged from an increasingly national and global economy. Recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court have brought more attention to the localism side of federalism. In debates about constitutional law in a federal system, there are many ways in which state constitutions and state courts have critical roles to play. The lecture will consider some areas of American constitutional law in which localism has taken precedence. It will also discuss some of the ways in which the American and Australian constitutional traditions are similar and different.

• Podcast - The Wigs Live! - The Sofronoff Inquiry and its Aftermath

Like our free newsletter?

The best way to support us is by telling others about it!

Have some feedback or content for our newsletter? Let us know [email protected]