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 [2016] FCA 12 Federal Court of Australia Besanko J 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. Medallion
|
Jobema Developments Pty Ltd v Zhu [2016] NSWSC 3 Supreme Court of New South Wales Black J 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. Jobema
|
Jetobee Pty Ltd (in liq) v Smith & Young Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 5 Supreme Court of New South Wales Lindsay J 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. Jetobee
|
Lanai Unit Holdings P/L v Mallesons Stephen Jacques [2016] QSC 2 Supreme Court of Queensland Jackson J 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. Lanai
|
ELS v Countrywide Nominees Pty Ltd [2016] 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. ELS
|