|Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. (No 11) (FCA) - trade practices - consumer law - ACCC’s application for further and better discovery dismissed
|Sutherland Shire Council v Major (NSWCA) - damages - respondent injured when railing gave way - Council conceded liability - Council’s appeal against assessment of damages allowed
|Weipa Hire Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (QSC) - contract - claim for amount owing for provision of services - summary judgment refused - strike out application refused
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. (No 11)  FCA 876
Federal Court of Australia
Discovery - trade practices - consumer law - applicant claimed second respondent contravened Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and Competition Codes by making arrangement or understanding described as “Snowy Hydro Project Agreement” - applicant sought further and better discovery against second respondent - r 20.21 Federal Court Rules (2011) (Cth) - held: there were relevant documents which had not been discovered by second respondent, however documents were in control of subsidiary of second respondent - evidence did not provide reasonable grounds for being fairly certain documents were or had been in second respondent’s control - application dismissed.
|Sutherland Shire Council v Major  NSWCA 243
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
McColl, Emmett & Sackville JJA
Damages - respondent injured when railing on which he was sitting gave way - respondent sued Council in negligence for not maintaining the railing - Council ultimately conceded liability - primary judge assessed damages at $278,392 - Council appealed against assessment of damages - ss3, 13, 16, 17A Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) - held: primary judge erred in assessment of damages for non-economic loss, future economic loss and future paid care - appeal allowed - verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $136,419.
|Weipa Hire Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia  QSC 242
Supreme Court of Queensland
Summary judgment - plaintiff leased hospital from Department - plaintiff and defendant made agreement by which plaintiff agreed to provide services to defendant - plaintiff claimed amount for continued provision of accommodation and services at hospital to Department after defendant’s staff no longer in occupation or using services - defendant sought summary judgment or to strike out material paragraphs of statement of claim - held: Court satisfied component of claim concerning presence of asbestos in ex-hospital rooms and vacation of premises not suitable for summary determination - Court not satisfied plaintiff had no real prospect of success on component of claim relating to continuation of agreement - summary judgment as to claim for reasonable remuneration also failed - strike-out application refused - applications dismissed.