Supreme Courts roundup 6 to 13 March 2014
Decisions, proceedings and news from the highest courts in common law jurisdictions in the last week are as follows:
Supreme Court of New Zealand
Roading and Asphalt Ltd v South Waikato District Council [2014] NZSC 18 (10 March 2014, 3 pages). Application for leave to appeal from Court of Appeal [2013] NZCA 566 dismissed. Contracts – Tender contracts – Whether implied obligation to treat tenderers fairly and equally
High Court of Australia
Western Australia v Brown [2014] HCA 8 (12 March 2014). Appeal from Federal Court of Australia dismissed. Native title – Rights in relation to land – 1964 agreement between State and joint venturers to develop iron ore deposits – Mineral leases granted pursuant to agreement – Agreement required joint venturers to give State and third parties access to land provided access did not unduly prejudice or interfere with mining operations – Whether right of exclusive possession – Whether joint venturers’ rights inconsistent with claimed native title rights and interests – Whether native title rights extinguished.
Supreme Court of Canada
R v Hutchinson [2014] SCC 19 (7 March 2014). Appeal from Court of Appeal for Nova Scotia dismissed. Criminal law – Sexual assault – Consent – Complainant consenting to sexual activity with male partner unaware that he had sabotaged condom – Whether evidence established that no voluntary agreement of complainant to engage in the sexual activity or whether complainant’s apparent consent vitiated by fraud – Criminal Code, RSC 1985.
Supreme Court of England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18 (12 March 2014). Appeal from Court of Appeal dismissed. Capacity – Settlement of personal injury proceedings – Respondent suffered severe brain injury when struck by motorcycle ridden by appellant – Parties agreed to settle before trial with compromise on both liability and quantum – Application to set aside consent order on basis that respondent did not have capacity to settle – Whether respondent lacked mental capacity to compromise consent order.
R (on the application of British Sky Broadcasting Ltd) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2014] UKSC 17 (12 March 2014). Appeal from Court of Appeal dismissed. Procedure – Evidence –Appellant sought order for production of documents passing between named persons and one of respondent’s journalists – Named persons charged with offences under Official Secrets Act 1989 – Secret evidence placed before judge by appellant but not disclosed to respondent –Whether on hearing of application under section 9 and Schedule 1 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 court can have regard to evidence adduced by applicant which has not been disclosed to respondent.
Supreme Court of the United States
Marvin M Brandt Revocable Trust v United States 572 US _ (2014) (12-1173) (10 March 2014). Appeal from Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit allowed (majority). Land law – Easement – Right of way granted to railroad in 1908 – Land conveyed to appellant in 1976 – Successor railroad later abandoned right of way – Judicial declaration of abandonment sought giving title to Government – Whether right of way an easement which was extinguished when railroad abandoned.
Rosemond v United States 572 US _ (2014) (12-895) (5 March 2014). Appeal from Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit allowed. Criminal law – Carrying gun in connection with drug trafficking offence – Degree of knowledge required for aiding and abetting.
BG Group plc r Republic of Argentina 572 US _ (2014) (12-138) (5 March 2014). Appeal from Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allowed (majority). International law – Treaty – Arbitration – Investment treaty between Argentina and United Kingdom – Arbitrator’s decision – Interpretation.
Lozano v Montoya Alvarez 572 US _ (2014) (12-820) (5 March 2014). Appeal from Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed. Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction – Petition for return of child filed more than one year after removal – Court found child now settled – Whether one-year period is subject to equitable tolling.
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
No decisions released during the period.