| Re Rudd; ex parte
Prince (WASC) - Wills - informal alterations - Will and codicil admitted to
probate in pre-altered state - one document not capable of being admitted |
| Jadwan Pty Ltd v Rae
& Partners (TASSC) - security for costs - trustee company ordered to pay security
for costs of action |
| Registrar-General of
NSW v Jea Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd (NSWCA) - real property - Registrar-General not
restrained from registering easement - appeal allowed |
| Mackay Sugar Ltd v
Quadrio (QCA) - contract - concluded and binding supply contract under Sugar Industry Act 1999 (Qld) - appeal
allowed |
| AME Hospitals Pty Ltd v Dixon (WASCA) - contract - negligence - extension of time to bring action
against doctor and company - appeals dismissed |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Re
Rudd; ex parte Prince
[2015] WASC 107
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Registrar C Boyle
Wills - probate - informal alterations -
executor sought to prove three testamentary writings of deceased - all documents
altered since execution - executor sought admission of documents to probate in
altered form - alterations to two of the documents not in compliance with s10 Wills Act 1970 (WASC) so unable to be
admitted except by jurisdiction conferred by s32 - held: Will and codicil
entitled to be admitted to probate as executed - informal alterations to each
not capable of being admitted - third document not capable of being admitted.
Rudd
|
Jadwan
Pty Ltd v Rae & Partners
[2015] TASSC 11
Supreme Court of Tasmania
Holt AsJ
Security for costs - defendants sought
that company give security for costs of litigation - s1335(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - requirements
that corporation was plaintiff there was reason to believe corporation would be
unable to pay costs if defendants successful - justice of the case - held: plaintiff
was trustee company with no tangible assets other than those held beneficially
for trust - Court satisfied there is reason to believe that plaintiff was
without assets to satisfy its liability if t costs of action awarded against it
- justice of case lay with orders being made for security for costs.
Jadwan
|
Registrar-General
of NSW v Jea Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd
[2015] NSWCA 74
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Bathurst CJ; Beazley P & Basten JA
Real property - first respondent registered
proprietor of lot (lot 4) - second respondent registered proprietor of lot (lot
5) which abutted lot 4 - until 1964 lots formed part of land owned by shopping
centre - land subdivided in 5 lots - in 1963 shopping centre transferred lot 5
to registered proprietor - memorandum of transfer contained covenant benefiting
lot 5 and burdening lot 4 - covenant not recorded on certificate of title for lot
4 - Registrar-General served notice in 2012 on first respondent pursuant to
s12A Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
advising he was proposing to record covenant on folio identifier of Lot 4 -
first respondent sought that Registrar-General
be restrained from recording covenant - primary judge found first respondent held
its interest as registered proprietor of lot 4 free of easement or restrictive
covenant - held: subject matter of covenant capable of constituting a grant of
an easement - validity of easement not
affected by failure to record it on certificate of title of servient tenement -
as easement omitted from title to servient tenement, exception to indefeasibility
applied - appeal allowed.
Registrar-General
|
Mackay
Sugar Ltd v Quadrio
[2015] QCA 41
Court of Appeal of Queensland
Carmody CJ; Fraser & Phillipides JJA
Contracts - statutory interpretation -
trial judge declared respondent had not committed to concluded and binding
contract with appellants in terms of “Tableland Collective Cane Supply and
Processing Agreement” - declaration based on conclusion respondent had not
complied with Sugar Industry Act 1999
(Qld) - whether trial judge erred in holding respondent had not signed a supply contract as required by s31(5) -
whether trial judge erred in holding a prerequisite
for a binding contract that parties intended to be legally bound was satisfied
- held: respondent manifested assent to entering contract by signing execution page
- respondent signed written supply contract in accordance with s31 - appeal
allowed.
Mackay
|
AME
Hospitals Pty Ltd -v- Dixon
[2015] WASCA 63
Court of Appeal of Western Australia
McLure P; Buss & Newnes JJA
Negligence - contract - limitations -
Master granted respondent extension of time under s36 Limitation Act 2005 (WA) to commence action against doctor and company
for breach of contract or negligence in connection with respondent’s birth - proper construction of s39 and its application
to facts and circumstances - injury -
physical cause - aware - ought reasonably to
have become aware - attributable to -
held: at time limitation period expired, respondent’s father not aware of physical cause of respondent’s encephalopathy
or cerebral palsy and not aware either
injury attributable to conduct of a person - Court’s power to extend time enlivened
- Master granted extension of time by order within 3 year period in s39(4) -
Master had power to make order within proper exercise of discretion - appeals dismissed.
AME
|
