|Miao v Michell (FCA) - bankruptcy - bankrupt permitted to travel overseas subject to undertaking and conditions
|JR Consulting & Drafting Pty Ltd v Cummings (NSWSC) - costs - separate determination of liability - issue of costs not deferred until quantification of loss
|Z487 Ltd v Skelton (QSC) - private international law - contract - exclusive choice of court agreement - stay refused
|Kasewieter v Galligan (SASC) - summary judgment - order for sale of property - extension of time to bring cross-action for property adjustment order refused
|Bride v The Registrar of Titles (WASC) - real property - vexatious litigant - extension of caveat refused
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)|
|Miao v Michell  FCA 22
Federal Court of Australia
Bankruptcy - applicant applied pursuant to s178(1) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to review trustee’s to refuse consent for her to overseas travel in accordance with s272(1)(c) - Federal Circuit Court judge refused application - held: consent to overseas travel should be given - reasons for overseas travel were genuine - trip was only for short time - applicant prepared to give undertaking to Court to return to Australia on request by trustee - not a situation where there might be considered to be incentives for applicant not to return - given applicant had now completed Statement of Affairs, overseas trip would not unduly impede administration of estate - although trustee’s decision on material before him was reasonable, changed circumstances justified setting aside decision - applicant permitted to leave Australia subject to undertakings and conditions.
|JR Consulting & Drafting Pty Ltd v Cummings  NSWSC 10
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Costs - proceedings related to ownership and control of software used in design and manufacture of items used in construction of buildings - principal judgment determined separate question of liability - defendants and cross-claimants substantially successful - whether Court should exercise discretion to make order for costs of hearing as to liability, or defer order until after quantification of loss determined - principles applicable to cases involving multiple parties and issues - s98 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) - held: question of costs of liability stage should not be deferred - defendants did not succeed on all issues - departure from general rule that costs follow event - costs orders modified
JR Consulting & Drafting Pty Ltd
|Z487 Ltd v Skelton  QSC 309
Supreme Court of Queensland
Private international law - first defendant was horticulturalist who bred kiwifruit in New Zealand - horticulturalist entered licence agreement with plaintiff company - director of company who negotiated agreement lived and worked in Australia - company sought declaration license agreement not validly terminated - horticulturalist sought declaration pursuant to s17 Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) that claim not properly started for want of jurisdiction, order setting aside claim, and stay of proceeding, on ground New Zealand court was more appropriate forum - held: there was exclusive choice of court agreement between parties which designated Australian court to determine matters in issue - exclusive choice of court agreement not null and void - pursuant to s20(1)(b) Court must not stay proceeding before it - horticulturalist not entitled to any relief - application dismissed.
|Kasewieter v Galligan  SASC 5
Supreme Court of South Australia
Summary judgment - parties were formerly in domestic relationship - parties were joint owners of residential property - plaintiff sought judgment in claim for sale of property and that net proceeds of sale be divided equally between parties - plaintiff also sought that defendant’s cross-action under Domestic Partners Property Act 1996 (SA) be dismissed on grounds it was substantially out of time and there was no justification for extending time - good reason to the contrary - onus - delay - held: no reasonable basis for defending plaintiff’s claim made out - order made for sale of property - no reasonable basis for extension of time to make cross-claim for property adjustment order - summary judgment granted.
|Bride v The Registrar of Titles  WASC 11
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Real property - caveats - applicant sought extension of caveat over property of second defendants in relation to which he was a vexatious litigant - 138C Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) - balance of convenience - held: caveat should not be extended - on the evidence, applicant did not have claim which has or may have substance - if applicant had claim it was weak - balance of convenience did not favour extension of caveat - apart from weakness of claim applicant had offered no undertaking as to damages - application dismissed.