| Anbu v Vulcanite Pty Ltd
(FCA) - legal
professional privilege - no express or implied waiver - access to documents
refused |
| Andonovski v Park-Tec
Engineering Pty Ltd and Barbeques Galore Pty Ltd; Andonovski v East
Realisations Pty Ltd (No 6) (NSWSC) - negligence - two accidents - employer
and occupier liable for work injury - companies liable for bus accident injury |
| Australian Securities
and Investments Commission v Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd (NSWSC) - legal
professional privilege - waiver - company obliged to respond to notice to
produce |
| Sands v State of South
Australia (SASCFC) - defamation - action against State for defamation and breach
of statutory duty dismissed - appeal dismissed |
| Spartalis v BMD Constructions
Pty Ltd (No 2) (SASCFC) - costs - interest - no error in determination of interest to
be paid on judgment or in award of costs - cross-appeal dismissed |
| James v The State of
Queensland (QSC) - pleadings - limitations - new cause of action - leave to file
and serve amended statement of claim with qualification |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Anbu
v Vulcanite Pty Ltd
[2015] FCA 283
Federal Court of Australia
Wigney J
Legal professional privilege - waiver - applicant
claimed respondents engaged in or were involved in conduct that was misleading
or deceptive, unconscionable, oppressive and unfairly prejudicial or unfairly
discriminatory - respondents served notice to produce on applicant - applicant
claimed legal professional privilege in relation to documents - respondents
accepted documents were prima facie privileged but maintained applicant had
waived privilege - held: pleadings and evidence filed by applicant did not result
in implied waiver - no implied waiver by partial disclosure of advice -
respondents’ application for access to documents dismissed.
Anbu
|
Andonovski
v Park-Tec Engineering Pty Ltd and Barbeques Galore Pty Ltd; Andonovski v East
Realisations Pty Ltd (No 6) [2015]
NSWSC 341
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Campbell J
Negligence - plaintiff claimed damages for injuries
from two accidents - first accident was fall from unfenced platform at work -
second accident in bus collision with truck in which plaintiff was passenger going
home after medical appointment for first accident - in first action defendants
were employer and company (Park-Tec) for whom work was being performed at its
premises - in second actions defendants were two companies (bus accident
defendants) - bus accident defendants admitted breach of duty but claimed
plaintiff was not injured - held: Park-Tec as occupier of premises was
negligent - employer conceded that if Park-Tec is liable it too was liable
because of non-delegable duty of care to plaintiff - no contributory negligence
- apportionment 70% to Park-Tec and 30% to employer - plaintiff suffered
appreciable injury in bus accident sufficient to constitute tort of negligence
- judgment for plaintiff.
Andonovski
|
Australian
Securities and Investments Commission v Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 342
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Sackar J
Legal professional privilege - waiver - ASIC
claimed company contravened s911A Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by operating business without Australian Financial
Services Licence - ASIC issued notice to produce to company - company claimed documents
privileged because they ere primarily communications between company and legal
advisors - ASIC accepted material was privilege but contended privilege had
been waived - ss122(2) & 126 Uniform
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) - reasonably
necessary to enable a proper understanding of the communication or document
held: company conduct in disclosing result of advice, but not advice itself,
amounted to an inconsistency with maintenance of privilege - company had
disclosed part of substance of advice received - privilege had been waived in
respect of certain documents with consequence that other documents also subject
to waiver - company obliged to respond to notice to produce.
ASIC
|
Sands
v State of South Australia
[2015] SASCFC 36
Full Court of the Supreme Court of South
Australia
Blue, Stanley & Nicholson JJ
Defamation - appellant sued State for defamation and breach of statutory duty
arising from Criminal Law (Forensic
Procedures) Act 1998 (SA) - primary judge dismissed action - appellant
contended primary judge erred in finding additional imputations not conveyed, defence
of justification made out, and that State did not breach Act - held: primary
judge correctly found appellant failed to demonstrate basis for striking out pleas
of justification and qualified privilege or precluding State from relying upon them
merely because of existence of material subject of public interest immunity
-
primary judge’s conclusion correct that State proved its case of justification
- primary judge correct to find imputations not made out and that State did not
contravene Act - appeal dismissed.
Sands
|
Spartalis
v BMD Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2015] SASCFC 28
Full Court of the Supreme Court of South
Australia
Peek, Blue & Parker JJ
Costs - Court dismissed appeal and
cross-appeal against judgment except insofar as cross-appeal related to
interest payable on judgment sum and basis on which costs awarded - whether
erroneous determination of interest rate to be applied on judgment sum - s39 District Court Act 1992 (SA) - Supreme Court Practice Directions 2006 (SA)
- held: trial judge’s discretion did not miscarry in determining rate of
interest to be applied on judgment sum, or in awarding costs - cross-appeal dismissed.
Spartalis
|
James
v The State of Queensland
[2015] QSC 65
Supreme Court of Queensland
Henry J
Pleadings - plaintiff claimed damages for
injury sustained in employment as paramedic - plaintiff sought leave to amend
statement of claim to plead new cause of action after expiration of limitation
period pursuant to r 376 Uniform Civil Procedure
Rules 1999 (Qld)(“UCPR”) and/or s81 Supreme
Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld) - whether new allegations introduced new
cause of action - whether cause of action arose out of substantially same facts
as existing cause of action - held: amended statement of claim struck out - appropriate
to grant leave to file and serve amended statement of claim subject to
qualification - certain paragraphs of initial statement of claim struck out with
leave to replead.
James
|
