Warren Winkler

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's eight-page reasons were inadequate to permit meaningful review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while it would have been preferable for the trial judge to more fully address the alleged frailties in the complainant's evidence, the pathway to the conclusion was apparent.

The trial judge had specifically addressed the fact that the complainant lied to the police, finding she was terrified.

The appellant appealed his nine-year sentence for importing 4.1 kg of cocaine.

The trial judge found that the appellant organized the importation and was in a superior position to the 19-year-old vulnerable courier.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the appellant's role and the multi-kilo quantity of cocaine.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court-appointed Receiver brought a motion for directions on whether the Auctioneer was entitled to a Buyer's Premium on a private sale of the debtor's assets.

The motion judge denied the premium because the Offer to Purchase contained an entire agreement clause and did not mention the premium.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding that the Auction Service Agreement between the Receiver and the Auctioneer mandated the premium, and denying it would result in commercial absurdity and a windfall to the Receiver.