A daily Bulletin listing our choice of Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia.


Tuesday, 23 September 2014
Executive Summary (One Minute Read)
Vo v Rawlings (QCA) - deceit - buyer of business claimed sellers made fraudulent misrepresentations - not established who made representations or that sellers knew they were false
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Seeney (QSC) - judicial review - government refused to compulsorily acquire rail corridor for mining project - discretion not improperly fettered by government policy - judicial review refused
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
Vo v Rawlings [2014] QCA 236
Court of Appeal of Queensland
Fraser & Gotterson JJA & Philippides J
Deceit - Vo bought a health food business from Rawlings and another - Vo claimed the vendors had made fraudulent representations - primary judge rejected Vo's claim - held: the primary judge was correct not to apply the rule in Jones v Dunkel against the vendors due to their failure to call their selling agent to give evidence - rule in Jones v Dunkel only applies where a party is required to explain or contradict something - no evidence that the vendors had been the authors of representations made by the selling agent - no evidence that the vendors knew of the falsity of the representations - fraud must be clearly proved - appeal dismissed.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Seeney [2014] QSC 226
Supreme Court of Queensland
Daubney J
Judicial review - Waratah mined coal in Galilee Basin - granted significant project status under State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld) - this empowered compulsory acquisition of land by government - government had identified preferred Galilee Basin rail corridors - government policy was generally not to approve rail corridors outside preferred corridors - Waratah applied for rail corridor outside preferred corridors - application refused - Waratah sought judicial review - held: decision-maker had not erred in identifying relevant government policy - decision required value judgment - could not take place in a policy vacuum - decision-maker did not merely apply policy without regards to merits of application - had not fettered his discretion - had not taken irrelevant considerations into account - had not failed to take relevant considerations into account - no Wednesbury unreasonableness - application for judicial review dismissed.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd