| Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (FCA) - defamation - Sydney Morning Herald poster and tweets published by The Age defamatory of Federal Treasurer - damages (I) |
| State of New South Wales v Sticker (NSWCA) - negligence - vicarious liability - teacher injured in fall at school when child pulled her back through doorway by the hand - appeal allowed - judgment against State set aside - retrial (I) |
| Waterwood Hotel Management Pty Ltd v KOP International Pty Ltd (NSWSC) - injunction - purported lease of land and business - ex parte injunctions discharged (I B) |
| Gmitrovic v Department of Defence (NSWSC) - pleadings - defamation - self-represented litigant granted leave to file fourth amended statement of claim (I) |
| Casey v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd; Helm v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd (No 3) (NSWSC) - costs - offer did not comply with new r20.26 UCPR 2005 (NSW) but offered real compromise - offer capable of admission under s131 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) - unreasonable rejection of offer - indemnity costs granted (I) |
| Design Joinery & Doors Pty Ltd v Ipower Pty Ltd (SASC) - contract - electricity supplied pursuant to oral request not oral contract - defendant liable to pay fair and reasonable value of electricity - appeal allowed (I B C) |
| Marshall v Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority (WASC) - administrative law - approval of development application - judicial review refused (I G) |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 652
Federal Court of Australia
White J
Defamation - action arising from articles published by newspapers in print and online regarding Federal Treasurer - Federal Treasurer sued publishers of newspapers alleging that articles and Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) poster conveyed defamatory imputations - publishers denied articles conveyed pleaded imputations and contended defence of qualified privilege was applicable in any event - Pt XX Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) - s22 Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) - s30 Defamation Act 2005 - Defamation Amendment Act 2002 - held: Federal Treasurer’s claim that SMH poster and two matters published on Twitter by The Age with words “Treasurer for Sale” and “Treasurer Hockey for Sale” were defamatory - publishers did not make out claims of qualified privilege - even if defence of qualified privilege had been available it would have been defeated by malice actuating publication - remaining claims not established - damages awarded to Federal Treasurer in sum of $120,000 for SMH poster and $80,00 in respect of the two tweets.
Hockey (I)
|
State of New South Wales v Sticker [2015] NSWCA 180
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
McColl, Gleeson & Leeming JJA
Negligence - vicarious liability - teacher was leading 7 year old student by the hand through door - teacher fell and was injured when student pulled her back - primary judge gave judgment for teacher - primary judge found child should have been either suspended or removed from school and that teacher would not have been injured had that occurred - State challenged findings of breach and causation and contended primary judge failed to give adequate reasons - State also challenged award of damages - held: primary judge made material error in findings of primary fact leading to erroneous findings of breach - some matters left unresolved by primary judge could not be resolved on appeal - there were also errors in assessment of damages - retrial necessary unless parties could otherwise resolve dispute - appeal allowed - judgment set aside - matter remitted for determination in accordance with law.
StateofNewSouthWales (I)
|
Waterwood Hotel Management Pty Ltd v KOP International Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 852
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Kunc J
Injunction - proceedings concerning ownership and operation of function centre - purported lease - plaintiff was lessee of land and business - defendants purported to re-enter and take possession of land and business without apparent cause - vague allegations of breach of arrangement between parties - lessees were granted ex parte orders restraining plaintiff from interfering with possession - defendants sought to have ex parte orders dismissed - held: Court concluded ex parte injunctions should be discharged for reasons including that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate serious question to be tried as to its entitlement to business in circumstances where first defendant did not own assets or employ employees which comprised business, and that damages were adequate remedy - ex parte injunctions discharged.
Waterwood (I B)
|
Gmitrovic v Department of Defence [2015] NSWSC 840
Supreme Court of New South Wales
McCallum J
Pleadings - defamation - self-represented litigant - plaintiff commenced against his former employer - plaintiff sought leave to file fourth amended statement of claim - defendants opposed application on basis it was time to disallow any further amendment - held: plaintiff was wishing to propound imputation that he was guilty of being a traitor and a spy - plaintiff was self-represented - unsurprising that litigant in person would experience difficulty meeting requirements of specifiying imputation - Court should not suffer requirement of precision to become instrument of injustice - application should be determined on its merits - question whether imputations of guilt sought to be relied were conveyed were one that should be determined by jury - matter complained of reasonably capable of conveying imputation plaintiff was a traitor and a spy - plaintiff granted leave to file fourth amended statement of claim.
Gmitrovic (I)
|
Casey v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd; Helm v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 857
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Schmidt J
Costs - Court made orders in favour of doctor - doctor sought order for costs and also indemnity costs on basis of offer of compromise - Pel-Air claimed offer did not comply with r20.26 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - doctor claimed words of offer made on his behalf were words ‘uniformly used in a judgment’ and could be used in a judgment disposing of claim - held: proposed orders for disposal of doctor’s claim not specified in order made as r20.26 required - r20.26 did not apply - however this did not mean offer could not be relied on - offer did not technically comply with requirements of new r20.26 but it offered a real compromise accompanied by reasonable period for acceptance - offe capable of acceptance and admissible under s131 Evidence Act 1995 on a costs application - rejection of offer was unreasonable - indemnity costs granted
Casey (I)
|
Design Joinery & Doors Pty Ltd v Ipower Pty Ltd [2015] SASC 93
Supreme Court of South Australia
Blue J
Contract - restitution - plaintiffs' telemarketer and defendant's director had telephone conversation on topic of defendant changing its electricity retailer from its current supplier to plaintiffs and entering contract - plaintiffs sent defendant welcome pack including standard terms applicable to small customers - defendant was not a small customer - plaintiffs subsequently registered as retailer responsible in electricity wholesale market to pay for electricity supplied to defendant's premises - defendant sent letter to plaintiffs stating it wished to terminate energy contract - Magistrate held there was oral contract between parties that incorporated plaintiffs' standard written terms for small customers which because defendant was a large customer, in turn incorporated standard written terms for large customers specifying pricing formula for supply after notice of termination - Magistrate allowed plaintiffs to reopen case to prove their standard terms for large customers and application of pricing formula - defendant appealed - held: Magistrate erred in finding there was oral contract between parties - electricity was supplied pursuant to an oral request - defendant liable to pay fair and reasonable value of electricity - appeal allowed - judgment set aside - judgment entered for plaintiffs for amount of $55,184.
Design (I B C)
|
Marshall v Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority [2015] WASC 226
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Pritchard J
Administrative law - applicants sought judicial review of decision of Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority to approve development application of Public Transport Authority - applicants contended that in making decision Authority fell into jurisdictional error in numerous respects - manifest unreasonableness - relevant and irrelevant considerations - orderly and property planning - statutory parameters for exercise of Authority’s power - satisfaction of matters of which Authority was required to be satisfied before approving application - ss7, 30, 31, 47, 52, 53, 54, 62, 64, 65, & 66 Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority Act 2011 - ss6 & 116 Planning and Development Act 2005 - held: applicants’ contentions failed - application for judicial review dismissed.
Marshall (I G)
|
