25 Jun 2024
The prosecution failed to prove dishonest intention beyond reasonable doubt. There was no clear evidence that entrusted funds were applied for the accused's personal use or deposited into his personal accounts and the defence of delegation and negligence raised a reasonable doubt; therefore acquittal is required.
25 Nov 2021
The High Court held there was no jurisdictional or procedural error by the Industrial Court; its factual findings that the employee had not been shown to be negligent and had acted under instruction were supported by evidence, and the Industrial Court lawfully awarded monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement under its statutory power, therefore the judicial review application was dismissed.
26 Aug 2020
Summary judgment dismissed because plaintiff failed to produce a s.142(1) certificate signed by the DGIR or evidence of lawful authorization for the signatory, and the supporting affidavit was defective for failing to aver the deponent's belief that the defendant had no defence (Order 14/Order 73 requirements); plaintiff's phrasing that defendant had "no defence with merits" raised triable issues not permissible to decide on affidavit alone, so summary relief could not be granted; interlocutory applications for stay and for Federal Court reference were also dismissed for lack of special circu…
11 Dec 2019
The application to set aside the High Court's judicial review order was dismissed because Order 53 r9 ordinarily bars setting aside of final judicial review orders and exceptions only apply in narrow circumstances; on the facts this Court was bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Ang Ming Lee that the Minister's grant of extension without affording purchasers a hearing was unlawful, and the outcome of the judicial review would have been the same even if the applicant had been joined, so there was no prejudice or breach of natural justice warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to set…
The Supreme Court held clause 11 and clause 25(b) were valid and not ultra vires: the Director had authority (actual or ostensible) to include those terms; exemption under s.2(1)(b) HD Act did not prohibit the Corporation from adopting similar contractual terms; onus to prove invalidity rested on the appellant; consequently the clauses were enforceable and the appeal was dismissed with costs.