Catchwords: Immigration – Representative proceedings – Where plaintiff brought representative proceeding in High Court for damages for false imprisonment – Where claimed that Group Members purportedly detained under ss 189 and 196 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where claimed that detention for purpose of receiving, investigating or determining application for visa, or determining whether to permit valid application for visa to be made, or of removing relevant Group Member from Australia to regional processing country – Where claimed that detention lawful only for period during which purposes pursued and carried into effect as soon as reasonably practicable and capable of fulfilment – Where claimed that detention unlawful because purposes not carried into effect as soon as reasonably practicable or because detention continued at times during which purposes not capable of fulfilment – Where plaintiff applied for order remitting proceeding to Federal Court of Australia pursuant to s 44(2A) of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – Where s 476B(1) of Migration Act provided that High Court must not remit matter "that relates to a migration decision" to court other than Federal Circuit Court – Where s 468B(1) and (2) provided that representative proceeding not permitted where proceeding would "raise an issue in connection with visas ...

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – summary disposal – defence based on limitation period – issues of fact or law to be determined – suitability for summary determination LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – limitation period for personal injury actions – when cause of action is “discoverable” – when the plaintiff “knows” that the injury was “caused by the fault of the defendant” –sufficiency of knowledge based on incomplete information – Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 50C and 50D WORDS AND PHRASES – “discoverable” – “knows” – “fact” ...

Catchwords: DAMAGES – damages for wrongful repudiation of agreement – expectation damages – whether claim for expectation damages expressly abandoned in previous hearing – party is bound by forensic election – likelihood of attainment of a profit – whether evidence of projections of future earnings sufficient to prove a likelihood of attainment – where projections undermined by actual performance – projections rejected as reliable indicator of actual performance – whether losses arising naturally from the breach of the contract – claim for expectation damages rejected DAMAGES – reliance damages – whether reliance damages only available as an alternative to expectation damages – not bound to elect between types of damages – recoupment of reliance losses – whether trial judge included future operating expenses in calculation – onus fell on appellant to prove that the net value of the performed contract would not have covered the expenditure incurred prior to rescission – onus not met – where trial judge relied on a general percentage figure to calculate lost opportunity to recoup reliance losses – no error in approach – 30% of expenditure award maintained DAMAGES – additional mitigation damages awarded – whether sufficient basis to allow damages – whether mitigation losses can predate repudiation of the contract – losses do not logically relate to mitigation – award reduced TRADE MARKS – account of profits – where registered trade mark infringed by respondent by offering to supply and supplying applications for use on electronic devices – where trade mark used in relation to sales made both in Australia and other countries – whether profits recoverable by registered owner in respect of sales made in other countries – whether appellant clearly argued or sufficiently developed submissions with regard to applicability of s 228 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – matter not sufficiently raised – whether sales made in other countries shown to be based on offers to sell in Australia – ground dismissed – whether sales rightly attributed to the use of the trade mark – cross-appeal ground dismissed COPYRIGHT – infringement – whether cross-respondents jointly liable for copyright infringement – no evidence that infringement authorised by parent company – cross-appeal ground dismissed ...

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Court of Appeal – Application for leave to appeal – whether the appeal points to any error of principle on the part of the primary judge in the exercise of judicial discretion – whether the applicant had sufficient opportunity to file the relevant evidence. ...

Catchwords: Police – Arrest without warrant – Where s 99(1) of Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) provides that police officer may, without warrant, arrest person if police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that person is committing or has committed offence and police officer is satisfied that arrest is reasonably necessary for one or more specified reasons – Where s 99(3) provides that police officer who arrests person under s 99 must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, take person before authorised officer to be dealt with according to law – Where police officer had not formed intention to charge arrested person with offence at time of arrest – Where police officer had not formed intention to bring arrested person before authorised officer to be dealt with according to law at time of arrest – Where arrested person brought claim for damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment – Whether arrest unlawful. Words and phrases – "answer a charge for an offence", "arrest", "arrest without a warrant", "as soon as is reasonably practicable", "authorised officer", "dealt with according to law", "false imprisonment", "improper purpose", "intention to charge", "investigation period", "police officer", "power to arrest", "purpose of arrest", "suspects on reasonable grounds". ...

Catchwords: Practice and procedure – Representative action – Orders – Where s 33ZF of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and s 183 of Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) provide that in representative proceeding court may make any order court thinks appropriate or necessary to ensure justice is done in proceeding – Where representative proceedings commenced in Federal Court of Australia and Supreme Court of New South Wales – Where proceedings funded by litigation funders – Where litigation funders entered into litigation funding agreements with small number of group members – Where representative parties in each proceeding applied for common fund order – Whether s 33ZF of Federal Court of Australia Act and s 183 of Civil Procedure Act empower Federal Court of Australia and Supreme Court of New South Wales to make common fund order. Words and phrases – "access to justice", "appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding", "award of damages", "book building", "common fund", "common fund order", "distribution of moneys recovered", "equitable sharing of costs", "fair and reasonable to all group members", "free riding", "funding commission", "funding equalisation order", "interests of justice", "litigation funding", "representative proceeding", "risk", "unfunded group members". ...

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW — appeal from orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia — where an employee of the first appellant engaged in protected industrial action — where the primary judge found that the first appellant took adverse action in contravention of s 340(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and that the second and third appellants were involved in those contraventions — where primary judge made orders with respect to compensation and pecuniary penalties INDUSTRIAL LAW — where primary judge found that each appellant had knowledge that the employee had engaged in protected industrial action — whether knowledge is a pre-condition to the engagement of the presumption in s 361 of the Act — consideration of the elements to be established in order to engage s 361 of the Act — whether the primary judge considered all of the evidence relevant to knowledge — whether this Court can assess and weigh the relevant evidence — whether it is appropriate in the circumstances to order a retrial ...