| Hurd v Zomojo Pty Ltd (FCAFC) - corporations - directors’ duties - breach of service agreement - damages - appeal dismissed - application to quash judgments and order also dismissed |
| Chu v Ngar (NSWSC) - succession - self-represented litigant - application for family provision order by child of deceased - application dismissed |
| Chu v Ngar (NSWSC) - costs - succession - no order made as to defendant’s costs to intent she would bear own costs - if plaintiff wished to seek her costs be paid out of estate or notional estate she should do so by notice of motion - directions |
| Vadasz v Gadaleta Steel Fabrication Pty Ltd (SASC) - contract - steel and welding services - no contractual right to claim - amount due and payable reduced - appeal allowed in part |
| Lindner v The Corporation of the City of Marion (SASC) - summary judgment - approval of development application - no reasonable cause of action against planning authority - summary judgment granted |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Hurd v Zomojo Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 147
Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Besanko, Gilmour & Beach JJ
Corporations - directors’ duties - applicant managing director found to have breached services agreement - applicant sought extension of time to appeal against judgments on liability and judgment on quantum and relief - applicant also sought to quash the judgments and orders - ss20(1A), 27 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) - standing - Constitutional writs - assertions of bias, errors of fact, lack of procedural fairness - held: extension of time granted - grounds of appeal not made out - appeal dismissed - application to quash judgments and orders dismissed.
Hurd
|
Chu v Ngar [2015] NSWSC 1505
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Hallen J
Succession - family provision - self-represented litigant - plaintiff child of deceased sought family provision order pursuant to Pt 3.2 Succession Act 2006 (NSW) - defendant was executor of deceased’s Will and mother of plaintiff - no provision made for plaintiff in deceased’s Will - whether adequate and proper provision not for plaintiff in Will - size of estate and what may be notional estate - defendant’s significant competing claim upon deceased’s bounty - incomplete disclosure of plaintiff’s financial resources and income -held: extension of time to bring application granted - Court not satisfied plaintiff established jurisdictional threshold for making of order - application dismissed.
Chu
|
Chu v Ngar (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1549
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Hallen J
Costs - family provision - plaintiff litigant in person was unsuccessful in claim for provision out of deceased father’s estate - plaintiff not present when reasons for judgment delivered - not known what application plaintiff might make in relation to costs - held: no order made as to defendant’s costs to intent she would bear own costs of proceedings - if plaintiff wished her costs to be paid out of estate or notional estate tshe should do so by notice of motion to be filed by certain date - directions.
Chu
|
Vadasz v Gadaleta Steel Fabrication Pty Ltd [2015] SASC 162
Supreme Court of South Australia
Nicholson J
Contract - appellant engaged respondent to undertake certain steel and welding services - appellant challenged respondent's entitlement to be paid invoiced amount of $70,168.01 - Magistrate made allowance for $10,000 part payment and reduction of $1,496.55 on account of errors in invoices - Magistrate found appellant liable, pursuant to contract, to pay respondent sum of $58,671.46 for work performed - appellant appealed - held: respondent had no contractual entitlement to claim - all hours of work performed by respondent’s employees to be charged out at agreed rate of $75 per hour plus GST - appeal allowed in part - amount due and payable reduced.
Vadasz
|
Lindner v The Corporation of the City of Marion [2015] SASC 152
Supreme Court of South Australia
Parker J
Summary judgment - plaintiffs brought claim in relation to defendant’s decision to grant approval for development on land under Development Act 1993 (SASC) - plaintiffs claimed defendant failed to assess development application correctly - defendant sought summary judgment on basis no reasonable cause of action, or dismissal of statement of claim or strike-out of certain parts of statement of claim - ss3, 35, 38, 38(3), 38(5), 86(1)(b) & 86(1)(f) - held: allegation of jurisdictional error served no purpose without application for judicial review - no reasonable basis for allegation of breach of duties or constructive fraud, or aiding or abetting on a fraud - no reasonable basis for claim of nuisance or conspiracy or fraud on a power - summary judgment granted.
Lindner
|
