| Hamed v Elddin (NSWCA) - real property - possession - respondent entitled to exclusive possession of property - leave to appeal refused
|
| Tzaneros Investments Pty Ltd v Walker Group Constructions Pty Ltd (NSWSC) - building contract - negligence - plaintiff entitled to damages in relation to defective concrete paving at container terminal
|
| Fitness First Australia Pty Ltd v Fenshaw Pty Ltd (NSWSC) - leases and tenancies - lessor entitled to relief for plaintiff’s failure to pay outgoings under leases
|
| B J Bearings Pty Ltd v Whitehead (VSC) - preliminary discovery - alleged breached of deed poll - preliminary discovery ordered subject to confidentiality regime
|
| Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Mecon Insurance Pty Ltd (VSC) - declarations - contraventions of “sunsetted” Fire Services Levy Monitor Act 2012 (Vic) - declarations granted
|
| Bradshaw v Griffiths (QCA) - real property - easements - road not “reasonably necessary in the interests of the effective use” of respondent’s property - appeal allowed
|
| Benchmark Television |
| |
|
|
|
| Nicholas Kidd SC and Shahan Ahmed on liability of Australian financial services licensees for the misconduct of their authorised |
| Nicholas Kidd SC and Shahan Ahmed review sections of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) governing the provision of financial services. They also review liability for misconduct by authorised representatives in the provision of such services with reference to Casacland v Wealthsure Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 761. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Hamed v Elddin [2016] NSWCA 9
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Meagher & Gleeson JJA; Sackville AJA
Real property - possession - primary Judge declared respondent entitled to exclusive possession of premises - primary judge granted respondent leave to issue writ of possession - applicant and husband vacated premises after applying unsuccessfully for a stay - applicant’s husband was undischarged bankrupt - applicant sought leave to appeal - whether applicant had interest in premises to exclusion of husband and bankruptcy trustees - ss58(1)(b), 60(1)(b) & 60(3)(b) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) - ss56(1 & 56(2) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) - ss63 & 101(2)(r) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) - held: applicant and husband had contended that each of them contributed to purchase price of premises, but there was no evidence that applicant independently contributed to purchase price - absence of evidence fatal to success of application - leave to appeal refused.
Hamed
|
Tzaneros Investments Pty Ltd v Walker Group Constructions Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 50
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Ball J
Building contract - negligence - plaintiff sued defendants for defective concrete paving at container terminal - first defendant cross claimed against second defendant for same damage - contractual warranties - assignment - apportionment - estoppel - estoppel by convention - ascertainment of parties to contact - damages - Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) - Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) - Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) - held: plaintiff entitled to damages from first defendant for costs in relation to replacement of pavement - second defendant liable to pay to first defendant amount which first defendant was liable to pay to plaintiff.
Tzaneros
|
Fitness First Australia Pty Ltd v Fenshaw Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 47
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Darke J
Leases and tenancies - dispute between plaintiff lessee tenant and defendant lessor as to outgoings and charges payable by tenant pursuant to two leases - competing contentions concerning construction of outgoings and charging provisions - “in respect of the Premises” - s3A Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW) - held: Court construed lease in manner contended for by defendant - defendant entitled to relief for plaintiff’s failure to pay outgoings under leases.
Fitness First
|
B J Bearings Pty Ltd v Whitehead [2016] VSC 44
Supreme Court of Victoria
Hargrave J
Preliminary discovery - applicant considering suing respondents for breaches of restraints on first respondent in Deed Poll and company and assistance with breaches by company and second respondent - applicant under r32.05 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) sought preliminary discovery from respondents - reasonableness of applicant’s inquiries - whether applicant’s information sufficient - held: preliminary discovery ordered subject to confidentiality regime.
B J Bearings
|
Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Mecon Insurance Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 42
Supreme Court of Victoria
Elliott J
Declaratory relief - plaintiff continued proceedings against defendants for contraventions of Fire Services Levy Monitor Act 2012 (Vic) - parties provided minute of consent orders seeking declarations that defendants had contravened ss26 & 31 and order pursuant to s102 that defendants cause notice to be published acknowledging the contraventions - whether Court satisfied it was appropriate to make orders - power to make declarations - appropriateness of declarations - held: contravened Act had been ”sunsetted” - declaratory relief would have no function in respect of parties’ conduct, other insurers or public, but utility of declarations would be to publicly state that the Act was contravened in the manner alleged and to indicate the Court’s disapproval or condemnation of contraventions - declarations made.
Director of Consumer Affairs
|
Bradshaw v Griffiths [2016] QCA 20
Court of Appeal of Queensland
Fraser, Gotterson & Morrison JJA
Real property - easements - respondent owned property which he subdivided into two properties- appellant purchased one of the properties - respondent continued to use road (Road A) leading from his property through appellant’s property by informal agreement - by informal agreement respondent constructed another road (Road D) which crossed appellant’s property - appellant denied respondent permission to cross her property - respondent granted statutory right of user for Road A and Road D pursuant to s180 Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) - appellant sought to appeal - held: in the circumstances Road D was not “reasonably necessary in the interests of the effective use” of respondent’s property - preference for Road D did not meet test under s180 - appeal in allowed in relation to easement over Road D allowed.
Bradshaw
|
