| NSW Trustee and Guardian v Lagana (NSWSC) - possession - deed of family arrangement - trustee entitled to possession of property |
| Goldie Marketing Pty Ltd v Financial Ombudsman Services (VSC) - dispute resolution - contract - FOS exercised discretion to exclude dispute in accordance with Terms of Reference - judgment for defendants |
| Nalos Pty Ltd v Robert Bird Group Pty Ltd (QSC) - pleadings - contract - negligence - permission refused to add new causes of action under Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
NSW Trustee and Guardian v Lagana [2015] NSWSC 779
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Garling J
Possession - trustee was registered proprietor of property - trustee claimed it was entitled to vacant possession as consequence of Court’s orders pursuant to Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 - defendants claimed they were entitled to remain in possession because of arrangement made by their late mother with prior registered proprietor of property, who was late mother’s brother - deed of family arrangement - circumstances of resolution of criminal assets recovery proceedings - held: Court not satisfied there was any arrangement between prior registered proprietor and defendants’ late mother which was sufficient to give any right to defendants to occupy property - trustee entitled to possession of property - judgment for trustee.
NSW
|
Goldie Marketing Pty Ltd v Financial Ombudsman Services [2015] VSC 292
Supreme Court of Victoria
Cameron J
Contract - dispute resolution - second defendant ANZ provided financial facilities to first plaintiff - second and third plaintiffs were directors of first plaintiff who guaranteed first plaintiff’s indebtedness to ANZ and provided further security over properties - defaults occurred under facilities - ANZ cancelled facilities and served notice that no further drawings permitted - plaintiffs lodged dispute with Financial Ombudsman Service Limited (FOS) - FOS excluded dispute from jurisdiction pursuant to its general discretion in cl 5.2 of Terms of Reference - whether FOS exercised discretion in accordance with Terms of Reference - held: Terms of Reference constituted entire contract between parties - FOS had broad discretion to exclude disputes under Terms of Reference which did not prevent it from taking into account staffing or resourcing issues - decision provided comprehensive, rational, cogent and persuasive reasons - decision to exclude dispute valid and should not be disturbed - judgment for defendants.
Goldie
|
Nalos Pty Ltd v Robert Bird Group Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 174
Supreme Court of Queensland
Burns J
Pleadings - plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of contract and negligence in connection with design and construction of commercial building - plaintiffs sought leave to add new causes of action under Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) against first and second defendants - whether appropriate to give leave to make proposed amendments - whether adequate explanation for delay - whether fair trial could be secured - held: Court not persuaded that fair trial could be secured if new causes of action added - Court satisfied there would be significant risk of injustice to first and second defendants if new causes of action allowed to proceed - no explanation for delay in seeking to prosecute claims - Court refused to exercise discretion under r376 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 to permit causes of action to be added - application dismissed.
Nalos
|
