| New
South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Australia and New Zealand Banking
Group Ltd (NSWSC) - contract - guarantee - misnomer of beneficiary
of bank guarantee corrected |
| Wright
by his tutor Wright v Optus Administration Pty Ltd (NSWSC)
- negligence - worker contracted out to Optus by labour hire company - worker
injured in attack by co-worker - Optus liable |
| Mitchell
v Moore (NSWSC) - pleadings - statement of claim disclosed no
reasonable cause of action - claim struck out - leave to replead |
| Boroondara
City Council v 1045 Burke Road Pty Ltd (VSCA) - environment and
planning - permit for demolition of heritage place - no error in Tribunal’s
determination |
| Idameneo
(No 123) Pty Ltd v Suszko (SASC) - pleadings - contract -
application to file and serve amended defence, set-off and counterclaim |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
New
South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Australia and New Zealand Banking
Group Ltd
[2015] NSWSC 176
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Kunc J
Contract - plaintiff Corporation claimed
it was intended beneficiary of two guarantees issued by bank at request of
first defendant customer - bank cross-claimed against customer and other
cross-defendants in respect of any liability bank might have to corporation
under guarantees - guarantees issued in favour of nonexistent “New South Wales
Land & Housing Department” - cross-defendants accepted that, if bank liable
to corporation, then their clients liable to indemnify bank - whether bank
liable to plaintiff under the guarantees - misnomer and absurdity - held: on
its proper construction “New South Wales Land & Housing Department Trading
As Housing NSW ABN 45754121940” in guarantees and Indemnity meant the Corporation
- Corporation had complied with guarantees - bank liable to Corporation -
cross-defendants liable to bank.
New South Wales Land and Housing
Corporation
|
Wright
by his tutor Wright v Optus Administration Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 160
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Campbell J
Negligence - plaintiff was employed by
labour hire company - plaintiff and co-worker were undertaking training by
Optus for work in call centre - plaintiff and co-worker employed to work for
Optus by different agencies - plaintiff sued Optus for damages for injury
suffered in attack by co-worker - plaintiff claimed that, at time of attack,
Optus owed him a duty analogous to that owed by employer to employee - Optus
denied it owed duty and contended the only relevant relationship was of
occupier of premises and lawful entrant - applicability of personal agency
agreement between labour hire company and Optus - application of s151Z Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) - Pt
3 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) -
psychological injury - held: Optus owed duty of care to plaintiff - Optus
breached duty of care by failing to take precautions against risk of harm - but
for Optus’s failure to take precautions, the harm suffered would not have
occurred - no contributory negligence - judgment for plaintiff.
Wright by his tutor Wright
|
Mitchell
v Moore
[2015] NSWSC 180
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Wilson J
Pleadings - plaintiff filed statement of
claim seeking declaration asserted debt amounted to charge on real property
owned by defendant, pending repayment of claimed amount - defendant sought to
have claim struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and having
tendency to cause embarrassment - held: statement of claim failed to identify
reasonable cause of action - plaintiff had pleaded a conclusion of law, not
material facts from which conclusion drawn - there was at least some basis that
plaintiff had triable case - statement of claim struck out with leave to file
and serve further statement of claim.
Mitchell
|
Boroondara
City Council v 1045 Burke Road Pty Ltd
[2015] VSCA 27
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Warren CJ, Santamaria JA & Garde AJA
Planning - heritage policy - demolition
of significant heritage place - applicant sought leave to appeal against
decision of trial judge concerning considerations to be taken into account by
responsible authority when determining whether to exercise discretion to allow
demolition of heritage buildings - whether responsible authority or tribunal
was entitled only to take into account considerations relating to Heritage
Conservation Policy - held: considerations of non-heritage nature could be
taken into account provided that they were relevant matters under provisions of
Planning and Environment Act 1987
(Vic) or purposes, objectives or decision guidelines relating to, or
incorporated into Heritage Overlay - Tribunal took into account consideration
of non-heritage nature but did not stray from matters it was permitted to
consider - no error in Tribunal’s determination that it was satisfied a permit
should issue under each applicable planning control on basis of conditions it
specified - appeal dismissed.
Boroondara City Council
|
Idameneo
(No 123) Pty Ltd v Suszko
[2015] SASC 29
Supreme Court of South Australia
Stanley J
Pleadings - dispute arising out of sale
deed and practitioner contract entered between plaintiff company and defendant
medical practitioner - defendant sought to file and serve amended defence,
set-off and counterclaim - substantial delay - watered costs - failure of
defendant to explain reasons for delay - held: Court satisfied that, if
amendment permitted, trial would have to be adjourned -
adjournment would result in significant costs being incurred - adjournment would
prejudice plaintiff and have repercussions for other litigants - application
refused.
Idameneo (No 123) Pty Ltd
|
