|Chang v CST Minerals Lady Annie Pty Ltd (FCA) - summary judgment - sex discrimination - summary judgment refused - statement of claim not struck out (I)
|Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v King (NSWCA) - pleadings - defamation - defences - contextual truth - leave to appeal from strike-out of contextual imputations refused (I)
|Stanton v Tyler (NSWSC) - summary dismissal - advocate’s immunity - summary dismissal of action against solicitor and barrister refused (I)
|Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Pavlovic (NSWSC) - contract - separate questions - binding agreement - no valid termination (B)
|Glavan v Abigroup Contractors (NSWSC) - judgments and orders - denial of fair opportunity to be heard in opposition to consent judgment - consent judgment set aside (I C)
|M J Arthurs Pty Ltd v Heaysman (QCA) - building contract - valid withdrawal from building contract by notice of withdrawal by facsimile transmission - appeal dismissed (I B C)
|Claremont 24-7 Pty Ltd v Invox Pty Ltd [No 2] (WASC) - contract - binding agreements for lease - plaintiff’’s interest as equitable lessee took priority over second defendant’s interest - specific performance ordered (B)
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Chang v CST Minerals Lady Annie Pty Ltd  FCA 620
Federal Court of Australia
Summary judgment - sex discrimination - applicant brought proceedings under Sex Discrimination Act 1984 seeking declaratory relief and compensation against respondent for alleged sex discrimination during her employment with respondent - respondent sought summary judgment or that amended statement of claim be struck out - held: inappropriate for decision to be taken by Court on summary basis which involved determination of questions of fact - inappropriate to determine questions of statutory construction on summary basis - applicant had pleaded material facts of allegations made - application dismissed.
|Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v King  NSWCA 172
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
McColl, Emmett & Leeming JJA
Pleadings - defamation - defences - contextual truth - action arising out of publication of articles in newspapers - respondent objected to appellant’s contextual imputations on grounds they were imprecise and bad in form - respondent also submitted one contextual imputation was incapable of arising from relevant matter complained of - primary judge held contextual imputations were impermissibly imprecise, embarrassing or lacked sufficient specificity - imputations were struck out - held: primary judge did not err in concluding impugned imputations capable of further refinement - leave to appeal refused - appellant not precluded from seeking to plead contextual imputations with greater specificity, which would be a matter for the primary judge - application dismissed.
|Stanton v Tyler  NSWSC 797
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Summary dismissal - plaintiffs pleaded causes of action including negligence against first defendant solicitor and second defendant barrister in relation to conduct of plaintiff’s proceedings and appeal proceedings - defendants each sought order summarily dismissing statement of claim and that judgment be entered in their favour - defendants had raised defences based upon principle of advocates’ immunity from suit - held: in present case summary dismissal application not an appropriate vehicle to determine boundaries or reach of immunity and whether or not case beyond immunity - Court did not consider applicants discharged onus of establishing proceedings untenable on basis of advocates’ immunity - plaintiffs’ contention that conduct fell outside scope of immunity was reasonably arguable - notices of motion dismissed.
|Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Pavlovic  NSWSC 791
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Contract - separate determination of two questions - whether plaintiff entered into binding agreement with first, second and third defendants on terms contained indeed of release despite fact that deed never executed by defendants - if there was a binding agreement, whether it was lawfully terminated - subsequent conduct - authority of solicitor to bind client - actual or ostensible authority - essential terms - intermediate terms - time stipulations - held: Court concluded that a binding agreement came into existence between plaintiff and Pavlovic Parties and that defendants did not validly terminate arrangement - parties to prepare short minutes to reflect reasons.
|Glavan v Abigroup Contractors  NSWSC 807
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Judgments and orders - third defendant insurer sought to set aside consent judgment in favour of first defendant against plaintiff - insurer also moved on behalf of second defendant insured - r36.16 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - balance between competing rights - held: first defendant entitled to make separate compromise with plaintiff but not entitled to enter into agreement with plaintiff that injured insurer’s interests or rights at least without giving insurer fair opportunity to be heard - insurer had been denied fair opportunity to be heard - consent judgment set aside.
Glavan (I C)
|M J Arthurs Pty Ltd v Heaysman  QCA 113
Court of Appeal of Queensland
M McMurdo P; Holmes JA & Atkinson J
Building contract - service - appellant registered builder unsuccessfully sued respondents under building contract - trial judge held respondents had withdrawn from contract under s72 Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 by notice of withdrawal given by facsimile transmission - appellant contended trial judge erred in finding notice of withdrawal validly given because notice was not sent to its last known facsimile number, which was the form of service for which building contract provided - held: trial judge properly made findings that number in contract was last facsimile number for appellant known to respondents and that withdrawal notice was served on company by facsimile transmission to that number - appeal dismissed.
MJArthurs (I B C)
|Claremont 24-7 Pty Ltd v Invox Pty Ltd [No 2]  WASC 220
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Le Miere J
Contract - lease - determination of separate questions - first defendant owned premises - plaintiff claimed first defendant agreed to lease the premises to it - first defendant contended it made no binding agreement to lease premises to plaintiff - plaintiff agreed to lease premises to second defendant - plaintiff claimed it had an interest as equitable lessee in premises which took priority over any interest of second defendant - whether first defendant engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct - whether plaintiff and second defendant each had agreement for lease with first defendant and if so whether second defendant’s agreement had priority over plaintiff’s - held: Court concluded there was a binding agreement between plaintiff and first defendant and that there was a binding agreement between first and defendant and second defendant - plaintiff’s interest as equitable lessee had priority over interest of second defendant - first defendant should be ordered to specifically perform agreement for lease with plaintiff.