|ShoreForm (Qld) Pty Ltd v Millennium Coal Pty Ltd (No 4) (FCA) - trade practices - contract - estoppel - misleading or deceptive conduct - claims by formwork services provider against companies - application dismissed
|Dijakovic v Perez (NSWCA) - motor accidents compensation - primary judge erred in refusing leave to commence proceedings more than three years after accident - appeal allowed
|Hitchens v Zurich Australia Ltd (NSWSC) - insurance - life insurance policies - insurer entitled to avoid policies on grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent non-disclosure
|Eighty Eight Construction Pty Ltd v PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd (NSWSC) - summary disposal - failure to conduct proceedings with due despatch - summons dismissed
|Tomasevic v Nowicki Carbone (VSC) - solicitors’ costs - extension of time to seek review of legal costs granted
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|ShoreForm Pty Ltd v Millennium Coal Pty Ltd (No 4)  FCA 605
Federal Court of Australia
Trade practices - applicant claimed declarations it entered into one or more contracts with either or both respondents for provision of formwork services - alternatively applicant claimed either or both respondents were estopped from denying existence of one or more binding contracts for provision of the formwork services - alternatively applicant claimed to recover payment for services provided on restitutionary basis - applicant also made further claim of misleading or deceptive conduct under s52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) or unconscionable conduct under s 51AC - monetary claim sought damages for breach of contract by respondents - alternatively applicant claimed payment by respondents on quantum meruit basis - in further alternative applicant sought damages or compensation under s87 for alleged misleading or deceptive conduct or unconscionable conduct - ss69 & 131 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) - s56 Property Law Act 1974 - held: applicant’s claims failed - application dismissed.
|Dijakovic v Perez  NSWCA 174
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Gleeson & Leeming JJA; McCallum J
Motor accidents compensation - applicant injured in motor vehicle accident - respondent was driver - applicant did not commence legal proceedings until date more than three years after the accident - primary judge refused application for to commence proceedings - whether full and satisfactory explanation for delay - applicable monetary threshold - s43A Motor Accidents Act 1988 - ss3, 60, 66, 82, 85A, 89A, 89C, 90, 91 & 109 Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 held: primary judge’s reasoning on ‘full and satisfactory’ explanation issue contained material errors of fact and failed to take into account relevant matters - primary judge erred in approach to lay and medical evidence in respect of monetary threshold issue - appeal allowed - leave granted to commence proceedings.
|Hitchens v Zurich Australia Ltd  NSWSC 825
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Insurance - duty of disclosure - plaintiff and first defendant insurer entered into two life insurance policies - plaintiff suffered accident using power saw - insurer purportedly avoided both policies on ground of misrepresentation and non-disclosure - plaintiff claimed damages that would compensate him for amounts that would be payable under both policies - answers to proposal form questions - held: insurer entitled to avoid policies on grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent non-disclosure - insured had fraudulently misrepresented medical history and breached duty of disclosure - no waiver by insured of duty of disclosure by not making further inquiries - judgment for insurer.
|Eighty Eight Construction Pty Ltd v PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd  NSWSC 847
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Summary disposal - defendant contracted plaintiff to build townhouses on property it owned - dispute arose concerning contract - plaintiff sought declaration that defendant had repudiated contract and that plaintiff validly terminated it - defendant sought dismissal of proceedings for want of due despatch pursuant to r12.7 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - held: plaintiff had been given every opportunity to prepare case for hearing - plaintiff had not conducted proceedings with due despatch - summons dismissed - judgment for defendant.
|Tomasevic v Nowicki Carbone  VSC 302
Supreme Court of Victoria
Legal practitioners - solicitors’ costs - applicant sought extension of time in which to seek review of legal costs under s3.4.38 Legal Profession Act 2004 - delay - futility - whether fair and just for Costs Court to carry out review after 12 month period had expired - held: despite Court’s strong doubts about whether applicant could obtain what he wanted by review and concerns about applicant’s willingness to accept limitations of costs review, Court granted extension of time - inconvenience to barristers and firm relatively trifling - applicant had explained delay - delay not great - applicant had expressed desire to challenge quantum of costs - just and fair that applicant be permitted to subject quantum to scrutiny - extension of time granted.