|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2003 |
|
|
Disobedience of an injunction was held to be civil contempt and not a crime disqualifying MPs under s51(2)(c).
Contempt of Court — disobedience of injunction is a civil contempt under common law; constitutional disqualification (s51(2)(c)) requires conviction of a crime involving dishonesty or moral turpitude; criminal contempt limited to conduct undermining administration of justice/in facie curiae; caution in applying foreign statutory contempt authorities.
|
22 December 2003 |
| October 2003 |
|
|
Ex parte injunctions require full, frank disclosure; misrepresentation disentitles applicant to stay of discharge.
Civil procedure — Ex parte injunctions — Duty of full and frank disclosure — Misrepresentation of alternative accommodation — Stay of discharge governed by ex parte principles, not Marriage Act or Married Women’s Property Act.
|
7 October 2003 |
| August 2003 |
|
|
Whether a government bureau lacking legal personality can be sued and the correct procedure to challenge restriction notices.
Constitutional/administrative law – statutory bodies – legal personality – Anti‑Corruption Bureau lacks capacity to sue or be sued; suits should be against Attorney General or Director; procedure under s.23(5)-(6) – Notice of Motion appropriate; natural justice – notice given; costs against non‑suable body untenable.
|
20 August 2003 |
| April 2003 |
|
|
Suing the Speaker for official parliamentary acts is improper; injunctions cannot be granted against the Government.
Public law — Judicial review of parliamentary decisions — Proper respondent is Attorney General, not Speaker — Civil Procedure Act s.10 bars injunctions against Government — Wrong party may be curable by amendment but court will not direct party selection — Natural justice and construction issues in parliamentary decisions may be reviewable.
|
27 April 2003 |
|
Seizure and freezing orders under CPA s32(5) are civil preservatory measures; ex parte relief is permissible with later inter partes safeguards.
Corrupt Practices Act s32(5) — seizure and freezing orders; civil ex parte applications; duty of full and frank disclosure; preservation of assets pending trial; property rights and constitutional limitation; tracing/segregation of assets; unclean hands; no statutory receivership under CPA.
|
16 April 2003 |
| March 2003 |
|
|
Appellant's murder conviction quashed for lack of evidence of malice aforethought or joint enterprise.
Criminal law – Murder – Malice aforethought – Requirement of intent or knowledge – Joint enterprise liability – Sufficiency of evidence – Dying declaration reliability – Provocation and self-defence directions – Manslaughter considered.
|
6 March 2003 |