| Eastbury
v Genea Ltd (NSWSC) – costs - successful application to
extend limitation period – costs in the cause |
| Morocz
v Marshman (NSWSC) – evidence – medical negligence – application to
take expert evidence by video link dismissed except in relation to two experts |
| Sauber
Motorsport AG v Giedo van der Garde (VSCA) – arbitration – no
error in enforcement of foreign arbitral award |
| Supple
v Building Appeals Board (VSC) - administrative law - no error in
determination of Building Appeals Board – proceeding dismissed |
| Dielos
v Barrie (SASC) - contract for sale of land – dismissal of claim for
return of deposit - appeal dismissed |
| Treloar
v State of Tasmania (TASFC) –
workers compensation - suitably qualified
medical practitioners for medical panel do not need to be qualified for
particular medical question at issue |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Eastbury
v Genea Ltd
[2015] NSWSC 198
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Hall J
Costs – Court made orders extending
limitation period for causes of action pleaded in statement of claim - plaintiffs
submitted defendant should costs because plaintiffs successful on application
and defendant had not discharged onus of satisfying Court that some other order should be made – defendant submitted
plaintiff should pay defendant’s costs on ordinary basis – unusual
circumstances - balancing of plaintiffs’ faultlessness in being outside
limitation period with defendant’s concerns as to availability of evidence – s60G
Limitations Act 1969 (NSW) – r42.1 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (2005)
- held: defendant’s opposition to application not unreasonable in circumstances
– appropriate order was that costs should be costs in the cause.
Eastbury
|
Morocz
v Marshman [2015]
NSWSC 149
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Harrison J
Evidence – medical negligence – plaintiff
sought order that certain expert witnesses located interstate or overseas
should be permitted to give evidence by video link – defendant objected to
order on basis witnesses not qualified to give expert evidence, offered
opinions outside professed area of expertise, or that evidence irrelevant –
plaintiff also requested separate determination of liability and damages -
held: Court not satisfied experts relevantly qualified to express opinions on
relevant matters or had provided admissible reports – application to take
evidence by video link dismissed except in respect of two experts – not
appropriate to separate issues of damages and liability – damages case must by
now be ready to proceed – no suggestion plaintiff’s condition not settled.
Morocz
|
Sauber
Motorsport AG v Giedo van der Garde BV
[2015] VSCA 37
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Whelan, Beach & Ferguson JJA
Arbitration – primary judge found there
were no grounds to refuse to enforce foreign arbitral award in which critical
dispositive provision required respondent to refrain from depriving first
application of entitlement to particular as driver in 2015 Formula One Season –
ss2D, 8 & 39 International
Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) – uncertainty – futility – legality and safety –
natural justice – position of other drivers - held: leave to appeal granted –
no error in decision of trial judge – appeal dismissed.
Sauber
|
Supple
v Building Appeals Board
[2015] VSC 83
Supreme Court of Victoria
Kaye JA
Administrative law - plaintiff sought
review of determination of Building Appeals Board in respect of appeal to it
under s141 Building Act 1993 (Vic) as
to appropriateness of building work, and in respect of disputes referred under
ss152 &153 - held: determination effective and did not need to be reconsidered
by a new panel of Board) - Board had jurisdiction to hear matter and did not
fail to take into account relevant matter - Board did not fail to give adequate
reasons for determination - application for judicial review failed - proceeding
dismissed
Supple
|
Dielos
v Barrie [2015]
SASC 31
Supreme Court of South Australia
Blue J
Contract for sale of land - Magistrate
dismissed appellant’s claim to recover deposit paid under contract for purchase
of land – contract was subject to condition precedent that subdivisional development
approval be granted from certain date - special condition not satisfied -
plaintiff wrote to respondent’s agent requesting return of deposit - parties subsequently
executed addendum providing for amendment of contract to delete special
condition, reduce purchase price and extend settlement date - appellant claimed
that in executing addendum he was acting on another person’s behalf and
disclosed this to respondent’s agent - purchase not completed - respondent
purported to terminate contract - held: on proper construction appellant’s
letter terminated contract - Magistrate’s finding that appellant did not
disclose he was acting for another person in signing addendum not overturned -
no basis to conclude entry into addendum vitiated by appellant being forced to
do so - appeal dismissed.
Dielos
|
Treloar
v State of Tasmania
[2015] TASFC 3
Full Court of the Supreme Court of
Tasmania
Tennent, Porter & Escourt JJ
Workers compensation - permanent
impairment from psychiatric injury - percentage of whole person impairment
referred to Chief Commissioner of Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Panel
- Chief Commissioner considered Tribunal had no power to refer question to
medical panel as suitably qualified medical practitioners were not available –
primary judge held that requirement that medical practitioner be suitably qualified had nothing to do
with qualification to consider a particular medical question and that it
referred only to qualification to be on register from which practitioners
chosen – primary judge set aside decision – ss49(3), 50 & 72 Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas) - held:
appeal grounds did not identify the nature of appealable error said to have
been made by primary judge – in effect appellant had made same submission as
were made to Chief Commissioner and primary judge – no error in primary judge’s
decision – appeal dismissed.
Treloar
|
