| Tajjour v New South Wales (HCA) - Constitutional law - NSW consorting laws do not breach constitutional guarantee of freedom of communication on government and political matters |
| Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 (HCA) - builder contracted with property developer - builder did not owe duty of care to Owners Corporation who succeeded developer in title |
| Taheri v Vitek (No 2) (NSWCA) - costs - successful respondents awarded indemnity costs from date of walk away offer of compromise |
| Hoggett v Murdoch (QSC) - equity - no interest in property established - injunction restraining dispersal of proceeds of sale refused |
| Liberty International Underwriters v The Salisbury Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (QSC) - professional indemnity insurance - beneficiary of discretionary trust sued by trustee for negligent financial advice - trustee sued in its own right as trustee, not on behalf of beneficiaries - exclusions did not apply |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Tajjour v New South Wales [2014] HCA 35
High Court of Australia
French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler & Keane JJ
Constitutional law - s93X Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) - offence to habitually consort with convicted offenders - three persons convicted under s93X appealed - claimed s93X infringed constitutional freedom of communication on governmental and political matters - held (by Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler & Keane JJ, French CJ dissenting): s93X was valid - held (by the whole Court): two-stage test from Lange v ABC (1997) 189 CLR 520 applied - does the law curtail political communication? - is the law reasonably adapted to serve a legitimate purpose? - held (by French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell & Gageler J): s93X curtails political communication to some degree - slightness of degree irrelevant - held (by Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel & Bell JJ) s93X was reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate purpose of preventing crime - s93X did not impose an undue burden on political communication - held (by French CJ and Gageler J): s93X was not reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve any legitimate purpose - held (by Gageler J): s93X should be read down so that, on its proper construction, it did not apply to consorting for the purpose of political communication - s31 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) - this did not assist the appellants - held (by French CJ): s93X could not be read down and was therefore invalid - held (by Keane J): s93X did not burden political communication at all - held (by Hayne, Gageler & Keane JJ): there is no independent right of association in the Australian Constitution - held (by French CJ, Hayne, Gageler & Keane JJ): the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not constrain the power of State legislatures to enact legislation contrary to the Covenant - appeals dismissed.
Tajjour |
Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 [2014] HCA 36
High Court of Australia
French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler & Keane JJ
Negligence - builder contracted with property developer to build strata units - common property vested in Owners Corporation on registration of strata plan - latent defects in common property - Owners Corporation allegedly suffered economic loss - Owners Corporation sued builder in negligence - Owners Corporation failed before single judge of NSW Supreme Court, but succeeded in Court of Appeal - held: when strata plan registered, Owners Corporation came into existence and held common property as agent for developer and was effectively controlled by the developer - builder's responsibilities to developer were defined in detail by design and development contract - Owners Corporation and purchasers of lots were not vulnerable to builder in the required sense - builder owed no duty of care to the developer - builder owed no duty of care to the Owners Corporation - appeal allowed.
Brookfield Multiplex Ltd |
Taheri v Vitek (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 344
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Bathurst CJ, Emmett & Leeming JJA
Costs - Court dismissed appeals - successful respondents sought variation of costs orders to reflect three walk away offers of compromise which were not accepted by appellant - held: two offers invited capitulation - not appropriate for non-acceptance of those offers to lead to consequences provided for in Pt42, r42.15 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) - final offer of compromise involved significant element of compromise - unreasonable for appellant not to have accepted it - respondents to have costs on indemnity basis.
Taheri |
Pasado Pty Ltd v Totally Raw Pty Ltd [2014] QCA 252
Court of Appeal of Queensland
Holmes & Gotterson JJA; Boddice J
Contract - parties were corporate entities of three accountants - parties combined accounting businesses to form company - appellant sought to retire from company - respondents proposed appellant's retirement be achieved by swapping appellant's shares in company for shares in associated company - parties agreed "in principle" to share swap - other matters raised by appellant left unresolved - parties then held meeting to finalise agreement, during which appellant did not raise unresolved matters - parties signed minutes of subsequent meeting - trial judge concluded all of the circumstances supported an inference that the minutes represented a concluded agreement entered into between parties with intention that it be binding on them - appellant contended signed minutes of meeting did not record enforceable agreement - held: no basis upon which Court could or should intervene to set aside inferences properly open to trial judge on accepted primary facts - appeal dismissed.
Pasado Pty Ltd |
Hoggett v Murdoch [2014] QSC 245
Supreme Court of Queensland
P Lyons J
Equity - daughter transferred her property (Abbey St property) to company - parents paid out mortgage on property - company purchased property (White St property) in which daughter lived with family - parents and company sold Abbey St property and were attempting to sell White St property - daughter claimed she had proprietary interest in White St property based on transfer of Abbey St property to company - daughter also claimed she had been told by parents that White St property was her home - daughter sought interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain dispersal of net proceeds of sale of White St property - held: on present material, there was very little to establish substantial case that daughter had proprietary interest in White St property which would entitle her to share of proceeds of its sale - not necessary to determine whether there was risk of dissipation because there was no contract for sale and no immediate risk of receipt of funds which might be dissipated - injunction refused.
Hoggett |
Liberty International Underwriters v The Salisbury Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] QSC 240
Supreme Court of Queensland
Flanagan J
Insurance - equity - trusts and trustees - investment advice company held professional indemnity insurance policy - authorised representative of investment advice company also insured - investment advice company, through the authorised representative, gave financial advice to trustee of authorised representative's family trust - authorised representative and family were discretionary beneficiaries under trust - authorised representative's spouse and children were trustee's directors and shareholders - trustee sued investment advice company and authorised representative for negligent financial advice and misleading and deceptive conduct - investment advice company and authorised representative sought indemnity under policy - policy excluded cover for a claim made on behalf of one insured against another, or one insured's spouse or child against another insured - policy also excluded cover for claim made on behalf of any entity in which an insured had a financial interest - insurer declined indemnity - held: trustee had brought proceedings in its own right as trustee of trust, not on behalf of related entities or family member of insured against another insured - trustee did not have a financial interest in trust.
Liberty International Underwriters |
Download PDF
Follow us
Search
