Recent Cases

Laming v Australian Electoral Commissioner [2025] HCA 31 – Successful appeal concerning the proper construction of section 321D of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

Zuce Tech Pty Ltd v Ebert [2024] QSC 297 – Whether a respondent could resist a mandatory interlocutory injunction on the basis that compliance with the injunction risked self-incrimination.

Zuce Tech Pty Ltd v Ebert [2024] QCA 219 – This case concerned whether a proceeding should be stayed in circumstances where the respondent asserted a risk of self-incrimination. The Court of Appeal considered whether the “companion principle” – that is, protection of the forensic advantages accorded to an accused during criminal proceedings – could be invoked before criminal proceedings had been commenced. The Court of Appeal held that the protection is not available until such time as the putative accused has been charged.

Airphysio Pty Ltd v Harbour Capital Asset Management Pty Ltd [2024] QCA 173 – A case about whether a promise to pay royalties in respect of equipment manufactured by the appellants could be avoided by licensing another entity not bound by the royalty agreement to manufacture the equipment.

Royal Pines Projects Pty Ltd v Brightman [2024] QCA 147 – This case concerned the practical effect of the implied duty of co-operation in performance of a contract in the context of units sold off the plan. The vendor failed to respond in a timely way to requests from purchasers for access to allow valuations for borrowing purposes. The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant’s argument that the implied duty did not extend to such access because the contracts were not subject to finance.

Wang v Queensland [2024] QSC 156 – Whether the provisions in the Property Law Act 1974 for relief from encroachment apply to unallocated state land. They do not.

Recycling Developments Pty Ltd v Bespoke Recycling Industries Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 42 – This was an application to set aside a caveat over commercial land. The Court rejected a range of challenges to the caveat, including that the caveator had engaged in conduct which disentitled it from specific performance, and that the balance of convenience was against retention of the caveat.

Anderson v Pickles Auctions (2023) 13 QR 286 – In this case, the Court held that a decision of the Court to dismiss an application to review a costs assessment was not a decision “only in relation to costs” within the meaning of section 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995.