| 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 (I B C G) |
| 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 (I B C G) |
| Taheri v Vitek (No 2) (NSWCA) - costs - successful respondents awarded indemnity costs from date of walk away offer of compromise (I B) |
| Walsh v DHS (VSCA) - accident compensation - no current work capacity - appeal dismissed (I G) |
| Hallmarc Construction v Saville (VSC) - security of payments - claims made out of time - adjudication determination quashed (C) |
| North v Homolka (VSC) - accident compensation - medical panel's reasons inadequate - determination of current work capacity quashed (I G) |
| Hoggett v Murdoch (QSC) - equity - no interest in property established - injunction restraining dispersal of proceeds of sale refused (I B) |
| 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 (I B) |
| 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 (I B C G) |
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 (I B C G) |
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 (I B) |
Walsh v DHS [2014] VSCA 244
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Nettle, Hansen & Tate JJA
Accident compensation - appellant injured knee in course of employment with respondent - appellant suffered psychiatric condition as result of knee injury - employer accepted claim under Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) for weekly payments of compensation - employer terminated weekly payments on basis she had current work capacity - appellant subsequently injured shoulders and developed low back pain - appellant sought to challenge termination of weekly payments on basis she had no current work capacity - medical panel determined appellant had no current work capacity on basis of all appellant's injuries - no current work capacity - held: primary judge did not err in finding medical panel was wrong to conclude that an injury that was supervening and unrelated could be aggregated with a compensable injury to give rise to an indivisible state of no work capacity - panel ought to have confined itself to incapacity that flowed from the compensable injury alone - appeal dismissed.
Walsh (I G) |
Hallmarc Construction v Saville [2014] VSC 491
Supreme Court of Victoria
Vickery J
Security of payments - principal and subcontractor entered construction contract for supply and installation of joinery - plaintiff sought declarations that two payment claims under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) were invalid - held: both claims were out of time - claims failed to comply with mandatory requirements under ss9 and 14 and were invalid - adjudication determination founded on first payment claim was void - adjudication determination quashed.
Hallmarc Construction (C) |
North v Homolka [2014] VSC 478
Supreme Court of Victoria
Ashley JA
Accident compensation - truck driver suffered compensable injury - truck driver sought reinstatement of weekly payments - medical panel determined truck driver continued to suffer from compensable incapacity attributable to back and ankle injury together with related psychological/psychiatric condition, that he was unfit for his pre-injury work as a truck driver; but that he had current work capacity - truck driver sought to quash decision - held: panel's reasons silent as to whether it took account of ankle disability in reaching its conclusion - reasons did not reveal any reconciliation which panel might have made of ankle disability and demands of jobs for which it concluded he had capacity for work, or of circumstance that back and ankle disabilities had quite different and conflicting incapacitating consequences - Court unable to examine panel's reasons for possible error - decision quashed.
North (I G) |
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 (I B) |
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 (I B) |
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 (I B) |
Download PDF
Follow us
Search
