Daily Banking: Wednesday, 23 December 2015
For the best view, please download images or click here
AR Conolly Company Lawyers.
A daily Bulletin listing our choice of Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia.

Daily Banking

SPECIAL EDITION

Dear Subscriber

Today and tomorrow we will be publishing Benchmark.

Warm regards
Alan Conolly for Benchmark
ARC signature.
Executive Summary (One Minute Read)
Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v Cross; Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v Thelander; Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v Thelander (HCA) - slip rule - costs - absence of order setting aside costs orders of Court of Appeal of New South Wales - error not covered by r3.01.2 High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) - summonses dismissed
LHRC v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (FCAFC) - administrative law - issue of notice to attend interview - refusal of judicial review - appeal dismissed
Hussain v Haynoum Developments Pty Ltd (NSWCA) - contract - money allegedly owing under deed - no unlawful conduct by second respondent - appeal dismissed
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v Cross; Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v Thelander; Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v Thelander [2015] HCA 52
High Court of Australia
French CJ
Slip rule - costs - Court allowed appeals by insurer against decisions of Court of Appeal of New South Wales - Court did not set aside par 6 of orders of Court of Appeal thus not disturbing costs orders made in favour of respondents - insurer sought orders that pars 4, 5 and 6 of orders of Court of Appeal be set aside and that respondents pay insurer's costs of each appeal - character of appeals as test cases - held: absence of order setting aside Court of Appeal’s costs orders was not, on its face, result of an error attracting r3.01.2 High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) - it would have been appropriate for insurer to have moved promptly to correct the allegedly erroneous failure to set aside costs orders - absence of order could not be judged as error of kind covered by r3.01.2 - summonses dismissed.
Certain Lloyd's Underwriters
LHRC v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2015] FCAFC 184
Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Siopis, Pagone & Wigney JJ
Administrative law - first appellant was director of an investment bank - second to sixth appellants were trustees of discretionary trusts - beneficiaries of discretionary trusts included first appellant and family members - first appellant also principal and director of the trustee companies together with father - primary judge dismissed appellants’ application for judicial review to set aside notice issued by Commissioner of Taxation under s264 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) to attend an interview - appellants contended primary judge ought to have concluded decision-maker failed to take into account relevant consideration when deciding to issue notice and that primary judge ought to have found decision to issue notice was unreasonable - “detriment” to first appellant - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) - s30(5) Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) - Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - s 39B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) - held: grounds of appeal failed - no failure to take into account relevant consideration - decision not unreasonable in relevant sense - appeal dismissed.
LHRC
Hussain v Haynoum Developments Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 420
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Beazley P, Leeming JA & McDougall J
Contract - respondents sued appellants to recover money owing under deed - appellants admitted they executed deed but that they had executed it as result of second respondent’s conduct amounting to duress or to “statutory” unconscionability - appellant’s conceded that if second respondent’s conduct not unlawful, appeal could not succeed - s13 Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act 1999 (NSW) - cll162A, 162B & 162C Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW) - r51.53 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) - held: appellants’ “implied term” argument failed - ground of appeal in relation to EPA Regulation failed - no unlawful conduct by second respondent - appeal dismissed.
Hussain