Insurance, Banking, Construction & Government Thursday, 2 April 2015 View in browser

A daily Bulletin listing our choice of Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia.
Benchmark

Daily Composite

Insurance, Banking, Construction & Government

Listen to our daily executive summary – 60 seconds only
Executive Summary (One Minute Read)
Anbu v Vulcanite Pty Ltd (FCA) - legal professional privilege - no express or implied waiver - access to documents refused (I)
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 (I)
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 (I B G)
Ciric v Ciric (NSWSC) - succession - family provision order in favour of son of deceased (B)
Sands v State of South Australia (SASCFC) - defamation - action against State for defamation and breach of statutory duty dismissed - appeal dismissed (I)
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 (I C)
James v The State of Queensland (QSC) - pleadings - limitations - new cause of action - leave to file and serve amended statement of claim with qualification (I)
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 (I)
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 (I)
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 (I B G)
Ciric v Ciric [2015] NSWSC 313
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Hallen J
Succession - plaintiff child of deceased made claim for family provision order under Succession Act 2006 (NSW) - prior Will of deceased - alleged misconduct by plaintiff in treatment of deceased - held: plaintiff was an eligible person - no provision in deceased’s Will for plaintiff - Court could not conclude deceased’s signed statement about plaintiff was accurate or its contents soundly based- deceased failed to make adequate and proper provision for plaintiff - lump sum order made.
Ciric (B)
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 (I)
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 (I C)
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 (I)