|Medallion Homes Pty Ltd v Lares Homes Pty Ltd (FCA) - interlocutory injunction - consumer law - copyright - injunction restraining reproduction of floor plans and construction of display home refused
|Jobema Developments Pty Ltd v Zhu (NSWSC) - real property - conveyancing - vendor refused permission to rescind off the plan contract for sale under sunset clause
|Jetobee Pty Ltd (in liq) v Smith & Young Pty Ltd (NSWSC) - possession - contract - stay of writ of possession refused
|Lanai Unit Holdings P/L v Mallesons Stephen Jacques (QSC) - security for costs - solicitors’ duties - trade practices - defendant solicitors granted security for past and future costs in amount of $450, 000
|ELS v Countrywide Nominees Pty Ltd (WASCA) - negligence - slip and fall - CCTV footage did not ‘incontrovertibly’ contradict primary judge’s findings of fact - appeal dismissed
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Medallion Homes Pty Ltd v Lares Homes Pty Ltd  FCA 12
Federal Court of Australia
Interlocutory injunction - consumer law - copyright - corporations - applicant sought interlocutory injunction restraining respondents from reproducing floor plans and constructing display home- applicant contended respondents copied its plans and also sought to restrain respondents from making allegedly misleading or deceptive representations on website and promotional material - Australian Consumer Law - s35 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) - Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - prima facie case - balance of convenience - held: applicant’s causes of action failed to support grant of interlocutory injunction - balance of convenience in respondents’ favour - application dismissed.
|Jobema Developments Pty Ltd v Zhu  NSWSC 3
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Real property - conveyancing - plaintiff vendor sought order under 66ZL Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) permitting it to rescind off the plan contract for sale with fourth defendant under sunset clause - ss15, 16, 66ZL, 66ZL(4), 66ZL(6) & 66ZL(7) - Conveyancing Amendment (Sunset Clauses) Act 2015 (NSW) - “sunset date” - whether just and equitable to grant leave - whether purchaser consented to rescission - whether plaintiff acted unreasonably or in bad faith - reason for delay in creating subject lot - effect of rescission on purchaser - whether reasons for rescission established - held: permission to rescind contract refused - application dismissed.
|Jetobee Pty Ltd (in liq) v Smith & Young Pty Ltd  NSWSC 5
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Possession - defendant sought stay of writ of possession in relation to land - defendant had filed notice of intention to appeal but no notice of appeal - application based on defendant’s entry into contract for sale of land - if contract completed, plaintiff's mortgage could be paid out - plaintiff doubted defendant’s bona fides and whether contract would be completed - plaintiff also claimed entitlement to fruits of judgment - held: Court concluded grounds of plaintiff’s opposition told against defendant’s application of stay - notice of motion dismissed.
|Lanai Unit Holdings P/L v Mallesons Stephen Jacques  QSC 2
Supreme Court of Queensland
Security for costs - plaintiff trustee sued defendant solicitors in negligence or under s82 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) for contravention of s52 - defendant sought security for costs - no dispute order for security should be made - amount of security - stage of proceeding to which security should be ordered - delay in bringing application - past and future costs - s15 Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) - s1335 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - rr 5, 670, 671 & 681 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) - held: plaintiff to give security for defendant’s future costs up to end of mediation stage - total amount of security for past and future costs of application $450,000.
|ELS v Countrywide Nominees Pty Ltd  WASCA 4
Court of Appeal of Western Australia
Buss, Murphy & Mazza JJA
Negligence - appellant claimed she slipped on oil deposited by cooking station which respondent used to cook products offered to shoppers - appellant claimed respondent negligently allowed oil to drop and negligently failed to properly clean it - primary judge dismissed claim - appellant contended CCTV footage incontrovertibly demonstrated findings on cause of slip and fall were erroneous. s79 District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA) - s79C Evidence Act 1906 (WA) - s58 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) - held: CCTV footage did not ‘incontrovertibly’ contradict primary judge’s findings of fact - primary judge’s findings were amply justified - findings not ‘glaringly improbable’ or ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ - appeal dismissed.