[...] [1985] 2 Qd R 13. Little v Registrar of the High Court of Australia (1991) 29 FCR 544. Norton v State 176 P 347 (1918). R v L (1991) 174 CLR 379. Rankin v Agen Biomedical Ltd [1999] 2 Qd R 435. [...]
[...] additional cases were cited in argument: R v Adams (1935) 53 CLR 563. R v BAQ (CA 328/2004; Court of Appeal, 18 February 2005, unreported); [2005] QCA 31. R v BBM (CA 240/2007; Court of Appeal, 20 [...]
[...] [27] [1999] 2 Qd R 435. This case was referred to me by the Court of Appeal Research Officer, Mr Bruce Godfrey. [28] [1985] 2 Qd R 13. [29] Rankin v Agen Biomedical Ltd [1999] 2 Qd R 435 at 437 [7] [...]
[...] determination was whether O 45 r 1 could relieve a party from the consequences of a self-executing order on the basis that events subsequent to the making of the order justified resort to O 45 r 1. If the word entitle [...]
[...] entitle in O 45 r 1 connoted only an absolute right, not merely a possibility of applying for relief, the party could not benefit from O 45 r 1. The Court noted that in KGK Constructions Pty [...]
[...] Court agreeing) adopted an expansive construction of O 45 r 1 and of the notion of the entitlement it provided; a party could have recourse to O 45 r 1 even where the facts demonstrated there was not an absolute [...]
[...] [36], [43]. Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569, 576; Rankin v Agen Biomedical Ltd [1999] 2 Qd R 435 applied. (3) That accordingly s 222(8) excluded the application of s 222 to the sexual acts between [...]
[...] 569. Colvin v Bradley Brothers Pty Ltd (1943) 68 CLR 151. Commonwealth v Moorhead 7 Pa Co Ct R 513 (1890). Conoly v Gayle 54 Ala 269 (1875). Cormick; In the Marriage of (1984) 156 CLR 170. [...]
[...] 20 June 2008, unreported); [2008] QCA 162. R v WN (CA 195/2005; Court of Appeal, 27 September 2005, unreported); [2005] QCA 359. CRIMINAL APPEAL Appeal from convictions before Richards DCJ and a jury [...]
[...] discussed the meaning of entitled in the quite different context of the now repealed O 45 r 1 Supreme Court Rules which relevantly provided: When facts arise after the giving of a judgment [...]
[...] favourable consideration.[29] Following KGK , this Court interpreted the word entitle in O 45 r 1 as capable of referring to instances in which the person seeking relief has to depend on a favourable [...]
[...] is that an ambiguous term should be strictly construed in favour of the person charged: Beckwith v R .[32] This case is within that unusual category of cases where it is prudent to adopt that principle [...]
[...] have been held criminally responsible under s 222 for the conduct alleged against him: cf Fingleton v R .[36] No retrial should be ordered on any count. Instead, a verdict of acquittal on each count should [...]
[...] [7] and [8]. [30] Rankin v Agen Biomedical Ltd [1999] 2 Qd R 435 at 438 [9]. [31] (1907) 5 CLR 132, Isaacs J at 154–155. [32] (1976) 135 CLR 569, Gibbs J at 576. [33] Section 32DA was inserted in [...]
[...] and Deane JJ at 389, Brennan J at 399; Fisher v Fisher (1986) 161 CLR 438, Brennan J at 455–456; R v L (1991) 174 CLR 379, Brennan J at 392; Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511, McHugh J [...]
[...] 24. [38] See Criminal Code Act 1899, s 349. [39] See eg Commonwealth v Moorhead 7 Pa Co Ct R 513at 516 (1890); Conoly v Gayle 54 Ala 269at 270 (1875); Norton v State 176 P 347at 349 (1918); [...]
[...] [41] See eg Hill v Hasler [1921] 3 KB 643at 652. [42] Rankin v Agen Biomedical Ltd [1999] 2 Qd R 435. [43] Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), s 23. [44] Colvin v Bradley Brothers Pty Ltd at 160 per Latham [...]