|Donaldson v Natural Springs Australia Ltd (FCA) - corporations - transfer of shares to company - no oppressive conduct, breach of Constitution or interference with contractual relations - proceeding dismissed (B)
|Pola v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (NSWCA) - real property - mortgages - breach of mortgagee’s duty under s85(1) Property Law Act 1974 (NSW) - appeal and cross-appeal dismissed (B C)
|Goldsmith v Ghosh (NSWSC) - defamation - injunctive relief - orders restraining publication of statements - leave to serve subpoena in United States (I)
|Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 4) (NSWSC) - defamation - injurious falsehood - publication of reserved reasons for various rulings (I)
|Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Parklands Blue Metal Pty Ltd (QCA) - environment and planning - successful appeal by company to Planning and Environment Court against refusal of development permits - Council’s appeal dismissed (B C)
|In the Matter of G, CL (SASC) - Wills and estates - statutory Will - likely testamentary intentions - Will annexed to Court’s reasons (B)
|In the Matter of Maniskas (SASC) - Wills and estates - order for making of statutory Will granted (B)
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Donaldson v Natural Springs Australia Ltd  FCA 498
Federal Court of Australia
Corporations - contract - interference with contractual relations - plaintiff was previous director of first defendant - plaintiff claimed defendants intentionally interfered with transfer of his shares in first defendant to second company causing him loss - plaintiff made claims against defendants in breach of contract, interference with contractual relations and oppression under s232 Corporations Act 2001 - plaintiff sought damages or order that defendants purchase his shares in company - ss140, 1071B, 1072F & 1072G - held: no oppressive conduct, breach of express or implied terms of Constitution or interference with contractual relations established - plaintiff unsuccessful on all claims - proceeding dismissed.
|Pola v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd  NSWCA 146
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Bathurst & Bergin CJJ; Young AJA
Real property - mortgages - appellants borrowed amount from bank secured by mortgages over properties - appellant defaulted - bank took possession of properties - bank exercised power of sale - property sold - bank sued appellant for balance of debt - appellant contended bank failed to discharge its duty as mortgagee to “take reasonable care to ensure that the property is sold at market value” under s85 Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) - trial judge found bank breached its duty in respect of advertising of property but otherwise dismissed cross-claim - parties appealed - held: trial judge correct to find bank breached duty under s85 by failing to refer to valuable water allocation in advertisements for sale - trial judge followed orthodox and appropriate process of assessing expert evidence in respect of valuation of market value - reduction of judgment in bank’s favour without error - appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.
Pola (B C)
|Goldsmith v Ghosh  NSWSC 631
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Defamation - plaintiff sued defendant for defamation - plaintiff sought urgent injunctive relief restraining defendant from publishing statements defamatory of him and requiring her to take all reasonable steps to remove from material from website - plaintiff also sought order under r11.5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 for leave to serve subpoena in United States - balance of convenience - held: Court satisfied material complained of was capable of being held to be defamatory - Court prepared to make orders restraining defendant from publishing statements for limited period of time - in circumstances Court did not propose to make order in relation to removal of material - Court satisfied order under r11.5 should be made to enable to plaintiff to attempt to identify anonymous author of publications on other website - orders made.
|Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 4)  NSWSC 610
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Pleadings - defamation - defences - contextual truth - action for defamation and injurious falsehood arising out of articles published in newspaper - interlocutory applications - publication of reserved reasons for various rulings - ss64(1)(a), 65(2)(c) & 65(3) Civil Procedure Act 2005 - s14B Limitation Act 1969 - held: plaintiff’s application to amend statement of claim against fifth defendant refused - existing pleading struck out against fifth defendant - defendants’ application for leave to file second further amended defence pleading new contextual imputation refused.
|Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Parklands Blue Metal Pty Ltd  QCA 91
Court of Appeal of Queensland
M McMurdo P, Gotterson JA & Dalton J
Environment and planning - appellant Council refused development application made by respondent for hard rock quarry - respondent successfully appealed to Planning and Environment Court - primary judge adjourned matter so that conditions could be formulated and attached to development permits - Council sought leave to appeal under s498 Sustainable Planning Act 2009 - construction and application of planning instruments - whether erroneous consideration of irrelevant issues and assertions or improper use of joint expert reports - whether failure to deal with aviation issues - whether erroneous failure to refuse application in absence of respondent’s commitment to upgrade of haul route - assessment of blasting impacts - assessment of needs - whether failure to provide adequate reasons - held: Council’s contentions not made out - Council did not demonstrate any error of law by primary judge - leave to appeal refused.
Sunshine (B C)
|In the Matter of G, CL  SASC 80
Supreme Court of South Australia
Wills and estates - CLG suffered brain injury at 7 years old when brick column collapsed on top of her - compromise of personal injury proceedings approved - protection order made - CLG’s mother sought order for making of statutory Will pursuant to s7 Wills Act 1936 - parties in dispute concerning relationship between CLG and father - guardian ad litem appointed for CLG put forward proposed Will - held: CLG lacked testamentary capacity - Will proposed by CLG’s guardian ad litem did not reflect CLG’s likely testamentary intentions - Will annexed to Court’s reasons accurately reflected CLG’s likely and testamentary intentions and was reasonable in all circumstances.
|In the Matter of Maniskas  SASC 77
Supreme Court of South Australia
Wills and estates - plaintiff was Guardian and Full Administrator of estate of defendant pursuant to order of Guardianship Board - plaintiff sought order under s7 of Wills Act 1936 authorising making of Will on defendant’s behalf - s72G(1)(e) Administration and Probate Act 1919 - held: Court satisfied defendant lacked testamentary capacity and that proposed Will reflected defendant’s testamentary intentions - order allowing making of statutory Will granted.