|Kuypers v Ashton Coal Operations Pty Ltd (No 3) (NSWSC) - evidence - workers compensation - permission to rely on statement provided to New South Wales Trade and Investment Mine Safety Unit
|Petan Pty Ltd v Schult (TASFC) - conveyancing - entry of property in Heritage Register gave rise to legal restriction on property which may hinder purchaser's use - appeal dismissed
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Kuypers v Ashton Coal Operations Pty Ltd (No 3)  NSWSC 1126
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Evidence - workers compensation - driller involved in drilling coal mine that led to accident subject of case was giving evidence - whether Court should permit reliance on statement provided to New South Wales Trade and Investment Mine Safety Unit under compulsion of s155 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) - statement not served by first defendant in accordance with directions - held: contents of statement were relevant to determining issues concerning any duty owed by first defendant and whether it breached any duty - statement broadly consistent with contents of statement served by plaintiff - nothing in statement which ought to take second defendant by surprise - no unfairness in tender of document - Court admitted document under s64 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
|Petan Pty Ltd v Schult  TASFC 10
Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania
Blow CJ; Porter & Wood JJ
Conveyancing - respondent contracted to purchase residential property from appellant containing three apartments - contract subject to condition precedent that there were no legal restrictions on use of property that may hinder or prevent purchaser from using property for residential use - respondent sought Court's determination under s39 Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1884 (Tas) whether heritage restriction under Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 (Tas) gave rise to any legal restriction that may hinder applicant from using it as residential dwelling within meaning of contract - primary judge answered question in affirmative - appellant appealed - construction of 'use' in condition precedent - whether condition precedent included registration of property on Heritage Register - whether routine maintenance and repair usually subject to legal restriction - whether heritage listing amounted to 'a significant limitation' in respect of routine maintenance and repair work - held: primary judge correct to answer question in affirmative - appeal dismissed.