| Carson
v Comcare (FCA) - administrative law - compensation for expenses of
journey to obtain medical treatment - 50 km threshold not satisfied by aggregation
of multiple journeys - appeal dismissed
|
| Munsie
v Dowling (No 4) (NSWSC) - pleadings - defamation - amended
defence struck out - leave to replead
|
| Wong
v Wong (NSWSC) - claim of unlawful assault against registered
proprietor of properties - extension of freezing order
|
| Stanizzo
v Badarne (NSWSC) - refusal to deal summarily with application to
transfer proceedings
|
| Bodapati
v Westpac Banking Corporation (QCA) - equity - interlocutory
injunction restraining sale of property refused - extension of time to appeal
refused
|
| Sino
Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 2] (WASC) - declarations
- obligation to transfer status of proponent - dispute concerning form of
declaration
|
| Knight
v Commonwealth of Australia (ACTSC) - pleadings -
limitations - leave to file amended statement of claim refused
|
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Carson
v Comcare
[2015] FCA 50
Federal Court of Australia
White J
Administrative law - workers compensation
- appellant employee challenged Comcare’s determination that s16(7) Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act
1988 (Cth) did not permit aggregation of multiple journeys to satisfy 50 km
threshold for payment of compensation to injured employee for expenses
reasonably incurred in making necessary journey to obtain medical treatment -
AAT upheld construction - held: construction of s16(7) adopted by Comcare and
AAT correct - threshold of 50 km to be determined by reference to each
individual journey (including its return) not by reference to aggregation of
multiple journeys - appeal dismissed.
Carson
|
Munsie
v Dowling (No 4)
[2015] NSWSC 37
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Hoeben CJ at CL
Pleadings - defamation - action arising
out of publication of material on website - plaintiffs sought that amended
defence be struck out on basis no reasonable defence disclosed or it had
tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay - defendant not legally
represented - scandalous material - non-compliance with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) - held: imputations
raised in statement of claim prima facie defamatory of plaintiffs - allowance
made for fact that defendant not legally qualified - defendant failed to
establish basis for amended defence to be allowed to remain in present form -
amended defence struck out with leave to replead.
Munsie
|
Wong
v Wong
[2015] NSWSC 22
Supreme Court of New South Wales
McDougall J
Freezing orders - plaintiff claimed
first defendant unlawfully assaulted him - plaintiff sought pursuant to r25.14 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
extension of freezing order with respect to properties of which first defendant
registered proprietor - evidence of threat of dissipation - relevance of
defendant’s view he had no ownership interest in properties - likelihood of
defendant satisfying judgment debt if unsuccessful in proceedings - held: case
made for extension of freezing order with relatively minor modifications -
plaintiff had at least reasonable prospects of success - freezing order
extended.
Wong
|
Stanizzo v Badarne [2015] NSWSC 26
Supreme
Court of New South Wales
McDougall
J
Transfer
of proceedings - dispute involving two District Court proceedings and one
Supreme Court proceeding - first defendant sought dismissal of plaintiff’s
application to transfer one District Court proceeding to the Supreme Court -
order in Supreme Court proceeding had noted transfer application should be
decided at same time as hearing of application for leave to amend statement of
claim - held: question of transfer should be dealt with once full extent of
factual issues in Supreme Court understood - if leave to amend statement of
claim granted, first defendant would have to file defence - Court might then be
in position to assess extent of any overlap between issues of fact and issues
of credit - Court declined to deal summarily with application.
Stanizzo
|
Bodapati v Westpac Banking
Corporation
[2015] QCA 7
Court
of Appeal of Queensland
Holmes
& Gotterson JJA; P Lyons J
Equity
- trial judge refused application by applicants for interlocutory injunction
restraining sale of property - applicant sought leave to appeal and extension
of time to make application - applicants also sought to adduce further evidence
- utility of appeal - special disability or disadvantage - held: applicants
failed to establish primary judge erred in decision - extension of time refused
- joinder of third plaintiff in trial division proceedings refused -
application to adduce further evidence refused
Bodapati
|
Sino Iron Pty Ltd v
Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 2]
[2014] WASC 444 (S)
Supreme
Court of Western Australia
Edelman
J
Declarations
- Court found that clause of Fortescue Coordination Deed imposed an obligation
upon Mineralogy to take steps to transfer to Sino Iron and Korean Steel the
status of proponent under Ministerial Statements - dispute concerning form of
declaration - person to whom transfer should be directed - whether declaration
should provide specific details about documents to be lodged with Office of
Environmental Protection as part of application for transfer of status of
proponent - timing for lodgement. s25(6) Supreme
Court Act 1935 (WA) - held: declaration made substantially in terms
proposed by Mineralogy to give effect to reasons.
Sino Iron Pty Ltd
|
Knight v Commonwealth of
Australia
[2015] ACTSC 13
Supreme
Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Mossop
M
Pleadings
- limitations - trespass to the person - negligence - plaintiff sought
extension of time pursuant to Limitation
Act 1985 (ACT) in which to bring proceedings against defendants -
circumstances alleged to give rise to causes of action occurred in 1987 -
Commonwealth objected to proposed amendments to plaintiff’s statement of claim
- Commonwealth submitted an understandable statement of claim necessary for it
to respond application for extension of time - held: not appropriate that leave
be granted to plaintiff to file amended statement of claim - plaintiff
permitted to make further application for leave - most significant issues needing
clarification were those which would significantly influence defendants’
response to application for extension of time - orders made.
Knight
|
