|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
|Hornsby Shire Council v Viscardi (NSWCA) - negligence - fall in car park in depression in bitumen - Council liable - no error in relation to damages - 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  HCA 52
High Court of Australia
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  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.
|Hornsby Shire Council v Viscardi  NSWCA 417
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Beazley P; Gleeson & Simpson JJA
Negligence - respondent injured shoulder in fall in car park when he lost footing after stepping into depression in bitumen (bitumen patch) - bitumen patch was product of “restoration work” rather than pothole - appellant was owner and occupier of car park premises - trial judge found appellant carried out original restoration work negligently and gave judgment for respondent - held: primary judge did not err in finding Council carried out restoration work or that accident was caused by Council’s negligence - appeal dismissed.
Hornsby Shire Council
|Hussain v Haynoum Developments Pty Ltd  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.