|Vella v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (HCA) - extension of time - migration law - order extending period for making show cause application refused
|Farrell v Comcare (FCA) - administrative law - permanent impairment - denial of compensation - erroneous decision by Administrative Appeals Tribunal - appeal allowed
|QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Mordue (NSWCA) - motor accidents compensation - insurer not bound by notice admitting liability for respondent’s claim - appeal allowed
|Otta International Pty Ltd v Asia Pacific Carbon Pte Ltd (NSWSC) - loan agreements - fourth defendant denied leave to represent other defendants in addition to himself - notice of motion dismissed
|People for the Plains Incorporated v Santos NSW (Eastern) (NSWSC) - judicial review - proceedings transferred to Land and Environment Court and heard together with related Land and Environment Court proceedings
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Vella v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection  HCA 42
High Court of Australia
Extension of time - migration law - show cause - plaintiff sought to challenge decision of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 13 June 2014 by application for show cause - whether Court satisfied it was necessary in interests of administration of justice to extend period for making of application - whether case “exceptional” - s486A Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - held: principle in University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) was against conclusion that interests of administration of justice necessitated extending time for party to litigate issues which party had already had opportunity to raise - Court not satisfied it was necessary in interests of t administration of justice to extend period for making show cause application given length of period for which extension sought and forensic choices made in Federal Court litigation - order under s486A(2) refused - application for an order to show cause dismissed.
|Farrell v Comcare  FCA 1337
Federal Court of Australia
Administrative law - appellant employee claimed compensation under Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) - Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed denial of compensation on basis “impairment” could be assessed under Tables 9.9.1a and 9.9.1b of Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment (Guide) and that appellant’s “whole person impairment” was less than 10%. - AAT concluded Comcare not liable to pay compensation pursuant to ss24 or 27 - “cannot be assessed” - whether AAT correct to rely on Tables 9.9.1a and 9.9.1b - held: AAT failed to make finding whether “impairment” for which appellant claimed compensation constituted a “permanent impairment” under s24(1) and/or failed to “determine the degree of permanent impairment ... under the provisions of the approved Guide...” - appeal allowed.
|QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Mordue  NSWCA 380
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Beazley P; Ward & Simpson JJA
Motor accidents compensation - respondent claimed against QBE under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) (MACA) for injuries suffered in motor car rally accident - respondent was passenger in vehicle driven by son - unregistered vehicle permit under Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997 (NSW) issued in respect of vehicle attached a third party insurance policy issued by QBE - QBE first admitted liability then denied indemnity to driver - respondent sought to quash Claims Assessor’s conclusion claim must be exempted from determination on basis QBE had denied indemnity - s81 MACA - primary judge found QBE bound by its notice admitting liability and that there was no room for exercise of discretion to exempt claim - held (by majority): primary judge erred finding QBE bound for all purposes by s81 notice admitting liability - not apparent that assessor could not reasonably form view claim should be exempt even leaving aside s81 issue - Court should not preclude any further claim for exemption - appeal allowed.
|Otta International Pty Ltd v Asia Pacific Carbon Pte Ltd  NSWSC 1818
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Loan agreements - legal representation - plaintiff sought amounts outstanding pursuant to loan agreements and damages for loss caused by misleading and deceptive conduct by fourth defendant - fourth defendant sought leave to represent first, second and third defendants as well as himself and leave to file submission of appearance pursuant to r6.9 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) - Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) - conflict or potential for conflict between other defendants’ interests and fourth defendant’s interests - principle in Yerkey v Jones (1939) 63 CLR 649 - held: not appropriate for defendants to be represented by fourth defendant or by other than legal practitioners - notice of motion dismissed.
|People for the Plains Incorporated v Santos NSW (Eastern)  NSWSC 1792
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Transfer of proceedings - judicial review - plaintiff sought order pursuant to s149B(2) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) that proceedings be transferred to Land and Environment Court and heard together with related proceedings - ss20, 21C Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) - Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 (NSW) - held: inimical to interests of justice to conduct parallel proceedings in different courts to determine challenges to separate but related decisions - highly desirable that matters be determined in single court - matter suitable for transfer - Court satisfied it was appropriate to make an order pursuant to s149B(2) Civil Procedure Act.
People for the Plains