| Queensland Nickel Pty
Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (HCA) - Constitutional law - special case - Div
48, Pt 3 Sch 1 Clean Energy Regulations
2011 (Cth) did not contravene s99 Constitution (I B C G) |
| Fernando v
Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) (FCAFC) - costs - offer of compromise -
rejection of offer not unreasonable - indemnity costs refused (I) |
| Dallas Buyers Club
LLC v iiNet Ltd (FCA) - preliminary discovery granted to owner of copyright in film on
conditions (I B) |
| Community Association
DP270253 v Woollahra Municipal Council (NSWCA) - costs - appeal from costs judgment in
Land and Environment Court dismissed (I C) |
| Singh v TAJ (Syd) Pty
Ltd (NSWSC) - workers
compensation - leave to revoke election to accept permanent loss compensation -
extension of time to commence common law proceedings (I) |
| Lisec Australia Pty
Ltd and Saremach Pty Ltd v Lisec Australia (NSWSC) - contract - evidence - interim
preservation order in respect of machinery (I B) |
| Amos v Wiltshire (QCA) - costs - bias
- unreasonable litigation conduct - no error in costs order against appellant -
appeal dismissed (I) |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Queensland
Nickel Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia
[2015] HCA 12
High Court of Australia
French CJ; Hayne, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler,
Keane & Nettle JJ
Constitutional law - special case to
determine whether Div 48, Pt 3 Sch 1 Clean
Energy Regulations 2011 (Cth) was invalid in application to plaintiff as result
of giving preference to one State over another contrary to s99 Constitution - plaintiff
contended Jobs and Competitiveness Program contravened s99 because allocative
baselines it prescribed by were fixed by reference to industry averages and resulted
in same number of free carbon units per unit volume of production regardless of
differences between producers’ inputs, production processes and outputs - held:
validity of provisions of Regulations upheld - Div 48 did not give preference
to one State over another - no contravention of s99 Constitution.
QueenslandNickel (I B C G)
|
Fernando
v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2)
[2015] FCAFC 49
Full Court of the Federal Court of
Australia
Besanko, Barker & Robertson JJ
Costs - offer of compromise - Court
dismissed appellant’s appeal which was brought by his tutor - Court allowed
Commonwealth’s cross-appeal - respondents sought that appellant pay their costs
of appeal on indemnity basis - whether Court should make costs orders against
mentally disabled person - rr9.61, 9.66, 25.14, 40.01 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) - held: order for costs should be
made against appellant on basis he was unsuccessful on appeal and Commonwealth successful
on cross-appeal - result of appeal and cross-appeal were less favourable to appellant
than terms of offer made to him by respondents - not unreasonable for appellant
to reject offer - appellant to pay respondents’ costs on party and party basis -
cross-respondent pay cross-appellant’s costs on party and party basis.
Fernando (I)
|
Dallas
Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Ltd
[2015] FCA 317
Federal Court of Australia
Perram J
Preliminary discovery - owner of
copyright in film sought preliminary discovery of documents - internet service providers
were respondents to application - applicants claimed they had identified 4,726
unique IP addresses from which their film was shared on-line their permission
contrary to Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
- held: ISPs to divulge names and physical addresses of customers associated with
each of IP addresses identified by applicants on condition information only be
used for purposes of recovering compensation for infringements and not
otherwise disclosed without Court’s leave - Court also imposed condition that
applicants were to submit draft of any letter they proposed to send to account
holders associated with IP addresses.
Dallas (I B)
|
Community
Association DP270253 v Woollahra Municipal Council [2015] NSWCA 80
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Barrett, Emmett & Leeming JJA
Costs - Association challenged costs
orders made in Land and Environment Court proceedings - Association successful
in application for recovation of order issued Council under s121B Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979 (NSW) - primary judge decided there should be no order as to costs - correctness
of primary judge’s decision that it was not “fair and reasonable” that costs
order be made - reasonableness of Council’s conduct in mounting defence to action
- r3.7 Land and Environment Court Rules
2007 (NSW) - held: Association failed to establish Council’s conduct as a
litigant in proceedings made it fair and reasonable that Council was required
to pay Association’s costs - no error of law in primary judge’s decision on
costs - appeal dismissed.
Community (I C)
|
Singh
v TAJ (Syd) Pty Ltd
[2015] NSWSC 368
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Campbell J
Workers compensation - plaintiff sought
order under s151A(5) Workers Compensation
Act 1987 (NSW) granting leave to
revoke election in 2002 to accept permanent loss compensation rather than
claiming common law damages - held: Court satisfied that when plaintiff made
election in 2002 no reasonable cause to believe dramatic further deterioration
in 2011 would occur - no active opposition from Workers Compensation insurer -
leave to revoke election granted - reasonable explanation for delay in bringing
proceedings - time to commence common law proceedings extended.
Singh (I)
|
Lisec
Australia Pty Ltd and Saremach Pty Ltd v Lisec Australia [2015] NSWSC 365
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Campbell J
Contract - proceedings relating to sale
of complex machinery - plaintiff sought interim preservation order in respect of
machinery so that evidence could be gathered for it to defend proceedings -
plaintiff concerned that moving machine might cause loss of data which would
make it impossible to diagnose any difficulty and, specifically, may make it
impossible to obtain expert evidence to defend the case - r 25.3 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
- held: Court made interim preservation order for a limited period and
timetable to facilitate prompt exchange of evidence.
Lisec (I B)
|
Amos
v Wiltshire
[2015] QCA 44
Court of Appeal of Queensland
Carmody CJ; Gotterson & Morrison JJA
Costs - bias - appeal from indemnity
costs order made against appellant on basis of unreasonable litigation conduct
- appellant contended primary judge made order despite being disqualified for
apprehended bias and awarded excessive costs to wrong party - held: no rational
basis for appellant’s contention primary judge impermissibly prejudged costs
issue or underlying facts - findings of fact fairly opening on evidence - nothing
to suggest costs power was exercised inconsistently with legal principles or
requirement of reasonableness - costs order sound - appeal dismissed.
Amos (I)
|
