Share it

In this occasional feature we deal with the substantive judgments from the Supreme Courts of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States. This weeks highlights are a very full discussion of “best interests” and medical treatment of under 16s from the Supreme Court of Canada and the last nine judgments of the legal year from the US Supreme Court.

 Australia:  The High Court of Australia gave no judgments this week.

Canada:  The Supreme Court of Canada gave one judgment this week:

<!–[if    In AC, AC AND AC v DIRECTOR OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES 2009 SCC 30  the Court held (Binnie J dissenting) that statutory provisions which permitted the courts to authorise treatment that it considered to be in the best interests of a child under 16 were constitutional

Hong Kong:   The Court of Final Appeal gave three substantive judgments this week:

<!–[if    Mr Sumption QC prevailed over Mr Beloff QC in the case of GOLDLION PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS v. REGENT NATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTD – [2009] HKCFA 58 on the issue of the construction of a “force majeure” clause.

<!–[if    YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE – [2009] HKCFA 57, the appellant represented by Mr Tim Owen QC, was unsuccessful in his argument that the appellant faced double jeopardy as a result of previous convictions in Macau

<!–[if    KAO, LEE & YIP (a firm) v. DONALD KOO HOI-YAN AND OTHERS – [2009] HKCFA 59, the Court affirmed the continuing applicable of the principle in Stancombe v Trowbridge UDC [1910] 2 Ch 190  ie that a person is liable in contempt if the act which breaches the order is intentional and it is not necessary to demonstrate and intention to disobey.

Ireland:  The Irish Supreme Court gave no judgments this week.

New Zealand:  The New Zealand Supreme Court gave no substantive judgments this week

South Africa:  The South African Constitutional Court gave no judgments this week.

United States:  The United States Supreme Court gave nine judgments this week.  Oral Arguments are now concluded for the term.

<!–[if    RICCI, FRANK v. DESTEFANO, JOHN.

No. 07-1428. Argued April 22, 2009 — Decided June 29, 2009

<!–[if    CUOMO, ATT’Y GEN. OF NY v. CLEARING HOUSE ASSOC.,

No. 08-453. Argued April 28, 2009 — Decided June 29, 2009

<!–[if    MELENDEZ-DIAZ, LUIS E. v. MASSACHUSETTS

No. 07-591. Argued November 10, 2008 — Decided June 25, 2009

<!–[if    ATLANTIC SOUNDING CO., INC. v. TOWNSEND, EDGAR L.

No. 08-214. Argued March 2, 2009 — Decided June 25, 2009

<!–[if    HORNE, THOMAS C. v. FLORES, MIRIAM.

No. 08-289. Argued April 20, 2009 — Decided June 25, 2009

<!–[if    SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. REDDING, APRIL

No. 08-479. Argued April 21, 2009 — Decided June 25, 2009

<!–[if    COEUR ALASKA, INC. v. SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION

No. 07-984. Argued January 12, 2009 — Decided June 22, 2009

<!–[if    FOREST GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT v. T. A.

No. 08-305. Argued April 28, 2009 — Decided June 22, 2009

<!–[if    NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUN. UTIL. v. MUKASEY, ATT’Y GEN.

No. 08-322. Argued April 29, 2009 — Decided June 22, 2009