Australian case library
AGLC4-formatted briefs of 100 High Court of Australia, Federal Court and State Court of Appeal authorities, mapped to the Priestley 11. Source judgments via AustLII.
Criminal Law and Procedure
Subject hub →- Pell v The Queen Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123
Standard of proof on appeal — appellate court must be satisfied jury verdict was reasonably open.
- Zaburoni v The Queen Zaburoni v The Queen (2016) 256 CLR 482
Specific intent: foresight of consequence is not the same as intention.
- R v Tang R v Tang (2008) 237 CLR 1
Criminal Code 'slavery' offence: rights of ownership exercised over a person.
- CTM v The Queen CTM v The Queen (2008) 236 CLR 440
Honest and reasonable mistake of fact in statutory rape — Proudman v Dayman applied.
- R v Lavender R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67
Manslaughter by criminal negligence — gross-negligence threshold.
- Stingel v The Queen Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312
Provocation — ordinary-person test for loss of self-control.
- Dudley v The Queen Dudley v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 23
Procedural fairness in jury direction — assumed essential elements not to be withdrawn.
- Bahri Kural v The Queen Bahri Kural v The Queen (1987) 162 CLR 502
Importation offence — knowledge of the substance required.
- He Kaw Teh v The Queen He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
Statutory presumption of mens rea — strict liability requires clear legislative intent.
Torts
Subject hub →- CAL No 14 Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board CAL No 14 Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board (2009) 239 CLR 390
No general duty on host to prevent intoxicated patron driving home.
- Imbree v McNeilly Imbree v McNeilly (2008) 236 CLR 510
Standard of care for inexperienced drivers — single standard regardless of skill.
- Vairy v Wyong Shire Council Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422
Risk and warning duties for public authorities — prospective characterisation.
- New South Wales v Lepore New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 212 CLR 511
Vicarious liability for intentional torts of teachers — non-delegable duty boundaries.
- Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002) 211 CLR 317
Pure mental harm — no requirement of sudden shock or normal fortitude.
- Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199
Privacy as equitable confidence — door left open to a tort of invasion of privacy.
- Sullivan v Moody Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562
Multifactorial / salient-features approach to novel duty of care.
- Wyong Shire Council v Shirt Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
Calculus of negligence — magnitude × probability vs burden of precaution.
- Donoghue v Stevenson Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Neighbour principle — duty of care foundation, adopted across Australian common law.
Contracts
Subject hub →- Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 560
Quantum meruit capped by contract price after repudiation — reins in unjust enrichment.
- Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2016) 258 CLR 525
Penalties — commercial test for stipulated remedies vs genuine pre-estimate.
- Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205
Penalties doctrine survives in equity beyond breach of contract.
- Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165
Signed-document rule — signatory bound regardless of having read the terms.
- Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451
Objective theory of contractual interpretation — whose meaning, what reasonable person.
- Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council (2002) 240 CLR 45
Construction of contractual discretions — implication of good faith.
- Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd (2001) 210 CLR 181
Restraint of trade — confidentiality clauses must protect a legitimate interest.
- Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221
Restitution — quantum meruit grounded in unjust enrichment, not implied contract.
- Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337
Frustration and admissibility of surrounding circumstances — Mason J's true rule.
Property
Subject hub →- Westfield Management Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd Westfield Management Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd (2007) 233 CLR 528
Easement construction — Torrens register is the source, no extrinsic evidence.
- Black v Garnock Black v Garnock (2007) 230 CLR 438
Caveat priority — purchaser bound by writ-of-execution registered before completion.
- Western Australia v Ward Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1
Native title is a bundle of rights — extinguishment must be examined right by right.
- Yanner v Eaton Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351
Crown 'property' in fauna does not extinguish indigenous rights to take fauna.
- Wik Peoples v Queensland Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1
Pastoral leases do not necessarily extinguish native title.
- Mabo v Queensland (No 2) Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1
Native title recognised at common law; rejection of terra nullius.
- Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Ltd v Gosper Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Ltd v Gosper (1991) 25 NSWLR 32
Forgery and indefeasibility — qualified rights of registered proprietor against innocent third party.
- Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604
Personal-equity exception to indefeasibility under Torrens.
- Calverley v Green Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Resulting trust where parties contribute unequally to purchase price.
- Frazer v Walker Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569
Indefeasibility of title under Torrens — registered proprietor takes free of unregistered interests.
Equity (incl. Trusts)
Subject hub →- Sidhu v Van Dyke Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505
Proprietary estoppel — reliance on assurance presumed once shown to be material.
- Bofinger v Kingsway Group Ltd Bofinger v Kingsway Group Ltd (2009) 239 CLR 269
Equitable subrogation — guarantor's right to surety stands independent of contract.
- Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd (in liq) Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd (in liq) (2001) 207 CLR 165
Auditors and fiduciary duty — narrow scope where contract defines the relationship.
- Giumelli v Giumelli Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101
Proprietary estoppel — court may impose constructive trust as the minimum equity.
- Breen v Williams Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71
Doctor-patient relationship — fiduciary duties have proscriptive, not prescriptive, scope.
- Commonwealth v Verwayen Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Equitable estoppel — single doctrine, detriment proportionate to relief.
- Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387
Promissory estoppel as a sword — cause of action in equity, not just defence.
- Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41
Fiduciary duties in commercial context — undertaking to act in another's interest.
- Boardman v Phipps Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46
No-profit rule — fiduciary liable to account for any unauthorised profit (cited extensively in AU).
Administrative Law
Subject hub →- Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 264 CLR 123
Materiality of error — JE only when decision could realistically have been different.
- Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth (2010) 243 CLR 319
Offshore detainees entitled to procedural fairness when officers exercise a statutory power.
- Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Privative clauses do not oust constitutionally entrenched judicial review for jurisdictional error.
- Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597
Jurisdictional error — decision affected by JE has no legal effect ab initio.
- Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82
Procedural fairness — denial gives rise to constitutional writs.
- Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Beneficial reading of administrative reasons — court does not parse forensically.
- Craig v South Australia Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Definition of jurisdictional error — categories for inferior courts and tribunals.
- Annetts v McCann Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596
Common-law duty of natural justice unless clearly excluded by statute.
- Kioa v West Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Procedural fairness presumed in statutory decisions affecting individual rights and interests.
Federal and State Constitutional Law
Subject hub →- Brown v Tasmania Brown v Tasmania (2017) 261 CLR 328
Workplace protests legislation invalid — implied freedom proportionality applied.
- Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 257 CLR 42
Offshore detention — statutory authorisation valid under s 61 executive power.
- McCloy v New South Wales McCloy v New South Wales (2015) 257 CLR 178
Implied freedom of political communication — three-stage proportionality test.
- Williams v Commonwealth (No 1) Williams v Commonwealth (No 1) (2012) 248 CLR 156
Executive spending requires legislative authority outside narrow categories.
- Roach v Electoral Commissioner Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR 162
Implied right to vote derived from ss 7 and 24 — limits on prisoner disenfranchisement.
- Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520
Implied freedom of political communication — defamation defence reformulated.
- Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51
State courts must be compatible with Ch III institutional integrity.
- Cole v Whitfield Cole v Whitfield (1988) 165 CLR 360
Section 92 — interstate trade must be free of discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind.
- Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1
Defence power limits — Parliament cannot recite its way into a power.
Civil Procedure
Subject hub →- Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia (2020) 271 CLR 1
Discovery from Crown — Palace letters held to be Commonwealth records.
- UBS AG v Tyne UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77
Abuse of process — relitigation standards in commercial litigation.
- Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507
Anshun estoppel — preclusion of issues that should have been raised.
- Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Late amendments require justification — case management and overall justice.
- Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v ACCC Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v ACCC (2002) 213 CLR 543
LPP not abrogated except by clear statutory words.
- Mann v Carnell Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1
Waiver of privilege — inconsistency between conduct and confidentiality.
- Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49
Legal professional privilege — dominant-purpose test replaces sole-purpose.
- Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146
Liberal amendment approach — overruled by Aon, but landmark for context.
- House v The King House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Appellate review of discretion — error must be of kind set out in House.
Evidence
Subject hub →- Bauer v The Queen Bauer v The Queen (2018) 266 CLR 56
Tendency in single-complainant sexual offences — joint trial admissibility.
- Hughes v The Queen Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338
Tendency in sexual offences — striking similarity not always required.
- IMM v The Queen IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300
Tendency / coincidence evidence — significant probative value standard.
- Honeysett v The Queen Honeysett v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 122
Specialised knowledge — anatomical comparison evidence excluded under s 79.
- Lithgow City Council v Jackson Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352
Opinion evidence — the rule against opinion is not relaxed for ambulance officers.
- Em v The Queen Em v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 67
Covert recordings of suspect — admissibility under Evidence Act ss 138, 139.
- Smith v The Queen Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650
Identification — police identification of accused from CCTV not relevant.
- R v Swaffield R v Swaffield; Pavic v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 159
Confessions — voluntariness, reliability, fairness, public-policy discretion.
- Bunning v Cross Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54
Discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence — public-interest balancing.
Company Law
Subject hub →- Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 8) Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 8) (2016) 336 ALR 209
Directors' liability for company conduct — sole director-shareholder arrangements.
- Howard v Federal Commissioner of Taxation Howard v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2014) 253 CLR 83
Director receiving payment in personal capacity — fiduciary scope.
- Westpac Banking Corporation v Bell Group Ltd (in liq) (No 3) Westpac Banking Corporation v Bell Group Ltd (in liq) (No 3) (2012) 270 ALR 1
Directors' duties to creditors of insolvent companies — Bell case principles.
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar (2012) 247 CLR 345
Directors' statutory duty of care — board minutes evidentiary value.
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey (2011) 196 FCR 291
Directors must read and understand financial statements personally.
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich (2009) 75 ACSR 1
Care and diligence under s 180 — non-executive director responsibilities.
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Adler Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Adler (2002) 41 ACSR 72
Director conflicts and improper use of position — landmark on related-party transactions.
- Re Cumberland Holdings Ltd Re Cumberland Holdings Ltd (1976) 137 CLR 27
Capital reduction — protection of creditors and shareholder classes.
- Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22
Separate legal personality — foundation of corporate law (universally cited in AU).
Professional Conduct (Ethics)
Subject hub →- Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) 259 CLR 1
Advocate's immunity narrowed — does not extend to negligent advice ending in consent orders.
- D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1
Advocate's immunity reaffirmed for in-court conduct intimately connected to litigation.
- Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd (2001) 4 VR 501
Successive representation — duty of loyalty to former clients.
- Kyle v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee Kyle v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee (1999) 21 WAR 56
Solicitor candour and integrity — strike-off for serious dishonesty.
- Dietrich v The Queen Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
Right to fair trial — court may stay prosecution where accused unrepresented.
- Mickelberg v The Queen Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259
Prosecutorial duty — fairness to accused requires disclosure of relevant material.
- Giannarelli v Wraith Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543
Barristers' immunity from suit — public-policy basis (later qualified).
- Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR 279
Fitness to practise — disqualification standard for criminal conviction.
- Tuckiar v The King Tuckiar v The King (1934) 52 CLR 335
Counsel's duty to client and court — disclosure must respect privilege.