| Symes v Mick Fabar Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) (NSWSC) - costs - proceedings in NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal - parties to pay own costs of plaintiff's unsuccessful appeal to Court in relation to costs
|
| Shogunn Investments Pty Ltd v Public Transport Authority of Western Australia (WASC) - private nuisance - determination of preliminary issue concerning ‘substantial interference' element of tort of private nuisance
|
| Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority v Southern Beaches Conservation Society Inc (TASSC) - costs - discontinued action - no unreasonable rejection of offer of compromise - indemnity costs refused
|
Dear Subscriber
1. This Benchmark Television broadcast is with Gregory Sirtes SC and Michelle Castle present on the Harman Principle.
2. How may documents produced to the court be used for other purposes? This is not well understood by many. The session is infectious. Gregory and Michelle present in a most pleasing way. This session is for all practicing lawyers.
3. This presentation fits the category ‘Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility’ – the session is 54 minutes.
4. For Benchmark CLE subscribers we have prepared notes which we will forward to them at their request.
5. Also for Benchmark CLE subscribers at their request we will forward them an advice notice evidencing when they accessed this production.
6. If you are not a CLE subscriber you can subscribe here: https://benchmarkinc.com.au/cle
7. We also have a series of questions for Benchmark CLE subscribers which we will send to them at their request.
8. We will be in the next few days publishing some productions which are exclusively for Benchmark CLE subscribers.
9. You should watch on Wi-Fi to avoid excess data usage charges.
Warm regards
Alan Conolly for Benchmark
|
|
|
| Benchmark Television |
|
|
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Symes v Mick Fabar Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 69
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Wilson J
Costs - plaintiffs successful against defendants in proceedings in NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal - defendant appealed member's decision - appeal dismissed - Appeal Panel refused plaintiff's application for costs - plaintiff sought leave to appeal for order that defendant pay costs - Court refused leave to appeal and ordered each party to bear own costs - defendant sought order for costs of unsuccessful appeal - s60(1) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) - s98(1) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) - r42.1 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) - held: general rule concerning costs in NCAT's jurisdiction was that parties pay own costs - no ‘disentitling' conduct' - each party had lodged unsuccessful appeal - no special circumstances or malfeasance by either party - parties to bear own costs.
Symes |
Shogunn Investments Pty Ltd v Public Transport Authority of Western Australia [2016] WASC 42
Supreme Court of Western Australia
K Martin J
Private nuisance - action in private nuisance brought by plaintiff company, which operated car parking business, against defendant Public Transport Authority - plaintiff sought to restrain defendant from removing traffic turn scenario - determination of preliminary issue concerning plaintiff's commercial car parking location and 'substantial interference' element of private nuisance - East Perth Redevelopment Act 1991 (WA) (Repealed) - Land Administration Act 1997 (WA) - Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority Act 2011 (WA) - Public Transport Authority Act 2003 (WA) - held: preliminary issue answered in favour of defendant - permanent removal of right hand turning lane not capable of interfering with plaintiff's use and enjoyment of leasehold interest or rights over premises sufficiently to form basis for private nuisance action.
Shogunn |
Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority v Southern Beaches Conservation Society Inc [2016] TASSC 5
Supreme Court of Tasmania
Blow CJ
Costs - indemnity costs - litigation concerning proposed development of waste disposal facility - plaintiff discontinued action - plaintiff conceded it should pay cost on party-party basis - defendants sought indemnity costs on basis of unreasonable failure by plaintiff to accept offer of compromise - whether sufficient reason to make order sought - r378(1)(a) Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas) - held: Court not satisfied plaintiff's case was so weak that its rejection of offer was so unreasonable or imprudent to warrant payment of indemnity costs - application refused.
Copping |
