|Lew Footwear Holdings Pty Ltd v Madden International Ltd (No 2) (NSWSC) - stay - statement of claim served on overseas defendant - strongly arguable case - stay refused
|Amricama Pty Ltd v Red Carpet Real Estate (QSC) - landlord and tenant - rent to be paid under renewed lease - valuer's determination of current market rent of no effect
|Electro Optic Systems Pty Ltd v New South Wales (ACTCA) - negligence - 2003 Canberra bushfires - NSW not negligent - statutory protections from liability would also have applied
|Franklin v Blick (ACTSC) - negligence - damages - collision between cyclists - one cyclist hit by car - failure to keep proper look-out - other cyclist liable
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Lew Footwear Holdings Pty Ltd v Madden International Ltd (No 2)  VSC 541
Supreme Court of Victoria
Stay - service - further hearing of application by defendant (Madden) to have proceeding stayed permanently - Madden was served in Hong Kong with writ filed in Supreme Court of Victoria - Court found plaintiff (Lew) failed to establish strongly arguable case that relevant conditions of r7.01(1)(i) and (j) Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) had been met - Lew had pleaded reliance as a necessary element of relevant causes of action but Court found Lew failed to establish strongly arguable case in this regard - it followed Lew had not established strongly arguable case that a tort had been committed or damage had been caused by tortious act or omission - Court proposed to stay proceedings permanently but deferred order - Lew filed further affidavits seeking to establish case on reliance - held: on totality of evidence, Lew established strongly arguable case - Lew entitled to proceed with its contractual claims and representations claims - summons dismissed.
Lew Footwear Holdings Pty Ltd
|Amricama Pty Ltd v Red Carpet Real Estate  QSC 267
Supreme Court of Queensland
Landlord and tenant - applicant leased retail shop from respondent - lease was subject to provisions of Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld) - applicant exercised option for further 5 years - dispute concerned rent to be paid under renewed lease - s27A allowed for determination of market rent before an option to renew - s28 provided for current market rent to be determined by specialist retail valuer - valuer agreed upon by parties in mediation as part of QCAT proceedings was not a specialist retail valuer - lease did not provide for rent to be determined in a particular way - respondent refused to provide lease in registrable form - applicant sought declarations and order that respondent deliver up a lease in registrable form containing a provision for rent in accordance with the determination of valuer - held: valuer was not a specialist retail valuer - valuation was not a determination of current market rent referred to in s27A - applicant could not rely on valuation for purposes of renewed lease - respondent could not be estopped, nor could it be said to have waived its rights under the Act - application dismissed.
Amricama Pty Ltd
|Electro Optic Systems Pty Ltd v New South Wales  ACTCA
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Murrell CJ, Jagot & Katzmann JJ
Negligence - 2003 Canberra bushfires - ACT residents and NSW landowner sued NSW - trial judge held NSW's negligence had caused plaintiffs' losses, but NSW protected from liability by s128 Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW) and s43 Civil Liability Act 2005 (NSW) - plaintiffs appealed - held: claim against Government was justiciable - NSW did not owe any relevant duty of care to the plaintiffs - NSW did not breach any duty of care, although harm was foreseeable - any breach of duty of care did not cause the plaintiffs' losses - s128 Rural Fires Act requires both negligent acts and negligent omissions be done in good faith - s128 Rural Fires Act would have operated to protect officers of NSW with respect to acts or omissions done in good faith and would have applied to protect those officers from liability - s43A Civil Liability Act would have operated to protect NSW because exercise of powers was not relevantly unreasonable - NSW did not owe duty to warn ACT residents.
Electro Optic Systems Pty Ltd
|Franklin v Blick  ACTSC 273
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Negligence - damages - defendant cyclist struck piece of wood in cycle lane causing defendant to collide with plaintiff cyclist - plaintiff fell onto road and was hit by car - no suggestion that driver was negligent - plaintiff sued defendant in negligence - plaintiff submitted defendant was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for dangers on cycleway as he was riding his bicycle - held: Court satisfied that if defendant had exercised reasonable care he would have seen and avoided piece of wood - Court satisfied defendant breached his duty of care to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's injuries as a consequence of falling from his bike and being struck by a car directly flowed from the defendant's negligence - no contributory negligence - damages assessed - judgment for plaintiff.