|Lewence Construction Pty Ltd v Southern Han Breakfast Point Pty Ltd (NSWCA) - security of payments - existence of reference date to support payment claim not a jurisdictional fact - appeal allowed
|Lahoud v Hooper (No. 2) (NSWSC) - discovery - order for preliminary discovery to obtain name of source of communication to defendant elected Councillor refused
|Insurance Aust v Milton (NSWSC) - administrative law - first defendant injured in motorcycle accident not eligible for scheme established by Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Act 2006 (NSW) - insurer’s summons dismissed
|Best Tech & Engineering Ltd v Samsung C&T Corporation (WASC) - interlocutory injunction - interim injunction granted restraining defendant from requesting calling or demanding payment on guarantee given pursuant to contract
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Lewence Construction Pty Ltd v Southern Han Breakfast Point Pty Ltd  NSWCA 288
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Ward & Emmett JJA; Sackville AJA
Security of payments - first respondent sought declaration that adjudication determination made by adjudicator under s22 Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) in respect of payment claim made by appellant was void - first respondent submitted adjudicator wrongly determined that reference date within meaning of s8 had arisen in respect of work subject of payment claim - first respondent also submitted adjudicator denied it natural justice - primary judge found there was no reference date supporting payment claim and no denial of natural justice - primary judge found first respondent entitled to declaration sought - appellant appealed - construction of ss8 & 13 - held: appellant was person who claimed entitlement under construction contract to progress payments in general sense contemplated by Act - appellant satisfied description in s8(1)(a) & (b) - existence of reference date to support payment claim was not a jurisdictional fact and not an essential pre-condition for making valid payment claim - appeal allowed.
|Lahoud v Hooper (No. 2)  NSWSC 1405
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Discovery - defamation - plaintiff sought order for preliminary discovery to obtain name of source of communication to defendant elected Councillor - second set of proceedings in which plaintiff had sought order - Court had dismissed first proceeding on basis plaintiff had not shown reasonable enquiries to ascertain source’s name - held: there may be good forensic reasons for plaintiff’s desire to bring proceedings against source - plaintiff’s claim against source was relatively weak - public interest in free flow of information from residents to local Council weighed against order - availability of defence of qualified privilege did little to ameliorate potentially detrimental effect of making order - Court not persuaded it was in interests of justice to make orders sought - summons dismissed.
|Insurance Aust v Milton  NSWSC 1392
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Administrative law - motor accidents compensation - first defendant injured in motor cycle accident - plaintiff was insurer of at fault vehicle and admitted liability for claim for damages - plaintiff sought to have first defendant included in scheme established by Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Act 2006 (NSW) - NRMA sought review of determination of Review Panel that first defendant not eligible - NRMA contended Review Panel erred by requiring first defendant’s brain injury to be sole or main cause of impaired functioning before he was eligible for scheme - NRMA also contended Review Panel’s reasons were inadequate - held: any error by Review Panel in stating or applying test for connection between brain injury and impaired functioning immaterial to its decision - Review Panel set out “actual path of reasoning” - path adopted by Review Panel revealed approach consistent with its obligations - summons dismissed.
|Best Tech & Engineering Ltd v Samsung C&T Corporation  WASC 355
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Interlocutory injunction - contract - plaintiff provided modular steel to defendant under contract - contract required plaintiff to provide security in form of bank guarantee - plaintiff sought interlocutory injunction restraining defendant from requesting calling or demanding payment on guarantee given pursuant to contract - serious question to be tried - balance of convenience - adequacy of damages - held: Court granted interim injunction to permit the defendant to be served with relevant material and to be heard on whether operation of interlocutory injunction should be extended.