SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
|
|
- Gervase Brooks
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: No 60 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: The Beach Club Port Douglas Pty Ltd v Page [2005] QSC 195 THE BEACH CLUB PORT DOUGLAS PTY LTD ACN (respondent/plaintiff) v GEORGE PAGE (applicant/defendant) Trial Division Application Supreme Court at Cairns DELIVERED ON: 10 June 2005 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 23 May 2005 JUDGE: ORDER: Muir J The claim be dismissed and that the respondent pay the applicant s costs of and incidental to the proceedings, including reserved costs, if any, to be assessed on the standard basis CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE DUTY OF CARE REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY OF DAMAGE WHERE ECONOMIC OR FINANCIAL LOSS where claim made for damages for negligent commencement of appeal by applicant where respondent asserts applicant owed it a duty of care regarding commencement of appeal - where respondent asserts appeal had no reasonable prospects of success whether duty of care exists between parties contemplating commencement of civil proceedings whether damages recoverable from a party for loss suffered due to commencement of claim where finality in litigation an issue Al-Kandari v J R. Brown & Co [1988] 1 QB 665 Burton v Shire of Bairnsdale (1908) 7 CLR 76 Business Computers International Ltd v Registrar of Companies [1988] 1 Ch 229 Cran v State of New South Wales (2004) Aust Torts Rep D Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) HCA 12
2 2 Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1948) 78 CLR 62 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932)] AC 562 Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1995] QB 335 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Gianelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543 Governors of Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co [1985] AC 201 Gregory v Portsmouth City Council [2000] 1 AC 419 Jamieson v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 574 Little v Law Institute of Victoria (1990) VR 257 Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191 COUNSEL: SOLICITORS: Mr B H Denton SC with R W Short for the respondent/plaintiff Mr S Couper QC for the applicant/respondent Miller Harris Lawyers for the respondent/plaintiff Walker Davis T/A MacDonnells Solicitors for the applicant/respondent [1] The applicant/defendant applies to strike out the respondent/plaintiff s claim on the basis that it discloses no sustainable cause of action. The claim is for damages for negligent commencement of an appeal by the applicant in the Planning and Environment Court against the decision of the Douglas Shire Council to grant a development permit in respect of a property at Port Douglas. [2] In the Statement of Claim it is alleged that:- (a) It was reasonably foreseeable that if the applicant appealed against the Council decision the respondent developer had suffered loss and damage; (b) the respondent has been delayed in commencing its development until the appeal is decided or withdrawn; (c) the applicant owed the respondent a duty of care not to appeal against the Council decision: (i) without reasonably or properly assessing whether or not the development qualified for the permit sought by the respondent; (ii) where the appeal was hopeless untenable and bound to fail ; or (iii) where the appeal had no reasonable prospects of success. The applicant s case [3] Apart from the ground referred to earlier, the applicant attacked the claim on a number of other bases. It was contended that a necessary element of the respondent s case, namely that the appeal was at all times hopeless, untenable and bound to fail, could not be sustained. Another point was that it could not be shown that the conduct of the applicant was causative of the respondent s loss as the development would have been delayed in any event as a result of a dispute between the local authority and the respondent concerning the local authority s gross floor
3 3 area requirements for the development. The final such additional contention was that the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process. It was submitted that the respondent s predominant purpose instituting the proceedings was to intimidate the applicant into withdrawing his Planning and Environment Court appeal. [4] In view of the conclusion I have reached in relation to the applicant s primary argument, it is unnecessary for me to rule on these other contentions. My limited investigation of them suggests that, in each case, the resolution of the matter depends on the determination of disputed issues of fact. No cross-examination took place and, in the time available, would have been impossible. [5] I now return to the question of whether or not the claim is in respect of a valid cause of action. The applicant s argument [6] That there is no available cause of action for the negligent institution of civil proceedings has been expressively decided in Business Computers International Ltd v Registrar of Companies 1 and approved in Al-Kandari v J R. Brown & Co 2 and Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. 3 [7] A prosecution owes no duty of care to an accused person. See Cran v State of New South Wales. 4 [8] The basis for such immunity was explained by Gaudron J in Jamieson v The Queen 5 in the following terms: Resort to the courts for the orderly resolution of disputes between citizens, or between citizens and government, would be greatly put at risk if witnesses were to be subject to restraints with respect to their evidence, other than those which serve to protect the integrity of the judicial process. It would be put at even greater risk if litigants were not similarly privileged in respect of the instigation of proceedings. Of course, there are also restraints in that regard. [9] There is debate about whether the tort of malicious prosecution is available in respect of the malicious prosecution of civil proceedings. 6 That debate would be unnecessary if a cause of action existed for negligent commencement of proceedings. [10] The principle discussed in D Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid 7 concerning the somewhat analogous immunity of barristers identified as the central and pervading tenet of the judicial system, that controversies, once resolved, are not to be reopened except in a few, narrowly defined, circumstances has application to the question under consideration. The existence of the cause of action asserted by the respondent conflicts with this principle [1988] 1 Ch 229. [1988] 1 QB 665 at 672. [1995] QB 335 at 348. (2004) Aust Torts Rep at 65,594-65,597, 60,598-60,599. (1993) 177 CLR 574 at 595. Little v Law Institute of Victoria (1990) VR 257 and Gregory v Portsmouth City Council [2000] 1 AC 419. (2005) HCA 12.
4 4 The respondent s contentions [11] The area of law dealing with negligence for recovery of economic loss is complex, novel and developing. Whether or not the alleged duty exists will very much depend on the findings made on the trial. [12] There is no binding Australian authority against the existence of the duty of care alleged by the respondent. In that case the authorities show that it would be a wrongful exercise of discretion to prevent the matter going to trial. In support of this last proposition the respondent relied on a number of authorities including General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) 8, Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners 9 and Burton v Shire of Bairnsdale. 10 Consideration of the English authorities relied on by the applicant [13] It is arguable that none of the English decisions relied on by the applicant expressly decide the issue under consideration, at least as the ratio decidendi of the decision. The plaintiff s contention in Business Computers International was that the second defendant acted negligently in failing to serve a winding up petition on it with the result that the plaintiff did not appear on the hearing of the petition and a winding up order was made. The trial judge, Scott J, concluded that despite the proximity between the parties, the alleged duty of care was not owed by the party presenting and serving the petition. He pointed out that Lord Atkins famous enunciation of principle in Donoghue v Stevenson 11 is not a comprehensive definition of all the circumstances in which a duty of care may arise and cited the following dictum of Lord Keith in Governors of Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd 12 : in determining whether or not a duty of care of particular scope was incumbent upon a defendant it is material to take into consideration whether it is just and reasonable that it should be so. [14] Scott J proceeded: Is it just and reasonable that a plaintiff should owe a duty of care to a defendant in regard to service of the originating process? I do not think that it is. The plaintiff and the defendant, the petitioner and the respondent, are antagonists. The plaintiff, or the petitioner, is seeking a legal remedy in an adversarial system. The system stipulates the rules and requirements that must be observed by the two parties. The plaintiff must issue his process and must serve it on the defendant. If there is default in service the process may be struck out. If an order is obtained without the prescribed rules or regulations having been observed, the order may be discharged or set aside, sometimes by an application at first instance, sometimes on appeal. The prosecution of the action or of the petition is subject throughout its career from institution to final judgment to judicial control. Service of process is a step, and usually an essential step, in the prosecution (1964) 112 CLR 125. (1948) 78 CLR 62. (1908) 7 CLR 76. [1932)] AC 562, 580. [1985] AC 201 at 241.
5 5 [15] The case was concerned with steps taken in the course of litigation rather than with the commencement of the litigation and its resolution depends on Scott J s conclusion:...that control of litigation and of the various steps taken in prosecuting litigation lies in the court and the rules and procedures that govern litigation and cannot be sought via a tortious duty of care imposed on one party for the benefit of the other. [16] Al-Kandari v J.R. Brown & Co was a case by a plaintiff against her husband s solicitor in circumstances in which the solicitor, acting for the plaintiff s husband in a matrimonial matter, voluntarily agreed to hold the husband s passport but relinquished it enabling his client to use it to the plaintiff s disadvantage. The plaintiff s husband had consented to an order that he surrender his passport to the solicitors. The factual situation addressed by that case is thus far removed from the issue of whether a defendant can sue a plaintiff for negligently commencing or continuing proceedings. [17] Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis concerned the question of whether the Crown Prosecution service owed a general duty of care to a defendant in the conduct of its prosecution of that defendant. Whether such a duty is owed depends upon matters which have no application to the general run of civil proceedings. As Lord Stein observed in the course of his reasons, whether there should be a duty of care imposed in such circumstances depended on the existence of other protections and remedies available to a defendant such as the accountability of the Attorney-General to Parliament and the general role of the Attorney-General in relation to prosecutions as well as the possibility of judicial review. Stein LJ also referred, in this context, to the tort of malicious prosecution and the tort of misfeasance in public office. His Lordship considered it relevant that the prosecution had an interest adverse to that of the person being prosecuted. In that regard he observed: In the absence of a specific assumption of responsibility lawyers engaged in hostile civil litigation are not liable in negligence to the opposing party: Al Kandari v J.R. Brown & Co [1988] QB 665; Business Computers International Ltd v Registrar of Companies [1988] Ch but I do not wish to take this analogy too far since a prosecutor in criminal proceedings is also a minister of justice. Nevertheless the reality is that a defendant in criminal proceedings must rely on the justices or the judge, and his own lawyers, to protect his interests. [18] Despite not being directly on point, or distinguishable on their facts, the cases just discussed provide support for the applicant s contentions. They suggest the unlikelihood of a duty of care arising in consequence of litigation between persons whose interests are antithetical. The normal and expected consequence of the commencement of proceedings by a plaintiff against a defendant is that success by the plaintiff in the proceedings will cause injury to the defendant or to the interests which the defendant seeks to uphold. [19] In Al-Kandari Bingham LJ explained the competing interests of litigants and their respective advisors and the consequences of such conflicting interests as follows: In the ordinary course of adversarial litigation a solicitor does not owe a duty of care to his client s adversary. The theory underlying
6 6 such litigation is that justice is best done if each party, separately and independently advised, attempts within the limits of the law and propriety and good practice to achieve the best result for himself that he reasonably can without regard to the interests of the other party. The duty of the solicitor, within the same limits, is to assist his client in that endeavour, although the wise solicitor may often advise that the best result will involve an element of compromise or give and take or horse trading. Ordinarily, however, in contested civil litigation a solicitor s proper concern is to do what is best for his client without regard to the interests of his opponent. [20] In Rondel v Worsley, 13 which concerned a claim arising out of conduct of a trial, Lord Pearce, in dicta, made the following observations in which it was implicit that no cause of action exists for the negligent institution of proceedings: It is a hardship that a man who has done no wrong should be subjected by a plaintiff to a baseless charge, in meeting which he will incur large expense. The charge may be reported largely in the newspapers and injure his reputation.but the basic hardship is inevitable and will always remain, namely, that any plaintiff can use the legal machine as a sounding board for untruthful allegations and cause harm, trouble and expense to an innocent defendant, and yet the law holds him (and the press who report the case) immune from paying damages for their untruth. Yet to remove this immunity would create a great injury to justice. Without it, the honest litigant might not dare to bring an honest claim for fear that if he fails he might be sued for damages. [21] Underlying his Lordship s reasons was the imperative of preserving freedom of access to the courts. [22] Gaudron J, in Jamieson v The Queen, 14 in the passage from her reasons quoted earlier, also referred to the undesirability of imposing restraints which might deter persons from having access to courts other than those which serve to protect the integrity of the judicial process. She then contrasted the position of litigants with witnesses in the following terms: The somewhat different position of litigants, vis-a-vis witnesses, can be seen from the nature of the restraints which affect them. Litigants are affected not only by the restraints effected by the laws relating to perjury, contempt and perverting the course of justice which ensure the integrity of the judicial process but, as well, by those designed to ensure that proceedings serve the ends of justice. Thus, liability attaches to them for malicious prosecution and for abuse of process; and they are subject to restraints which may be imposed by the courts with respect to proceedings which are vexatious or oppressive; or, those which may be imposed on litigants who habitually instigate proceedings of that kind. The different position of litigants, vis-a-vis witnesses, explains the fact that civil liability attaches to them for instigating proceedings which amount to malicious prosecution or abuse of process [1969] 1 AC 191 at 268. (1993) 177 CLR 574 at 595.
7 7 [23] The existence of the alleged duty of care would also tend to contravene the strongly entrenched preference of the law for finality in litigation. [24] In D Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid, 15 Gleeson CJ, after referring to Mason CJ s upholding barristers immunity on the grounds of public policy based in part on the adverse consequence for the administration of justice which would flow from the re-litigation in collateral proceedings for negligence of issues determined in the principal proceedings, 16 said: 34. A central and pervading tenet of the judicial system is that controversies, once resolved, are not to be reopened except in a few narrowly defined, circumstances. That tenet finds reflection in the restriction upon the reopening of final orders after entry and in the rules concerning the bringing of an action to set aside a final judgment on the ground that it was procured by fraud. The tenet also finds reflection in the doctrines of res judicata and issues estoppel. Those doctrines prevent a party to a proceeding raising, in a new proceeding against a party to the original proceeding, a cause of action or issue that was finally decided in the original proceeding. It is a tenet that underpins the extension of principles of preclusion to some circumstances where the issues raised in the later proceeding could have been raised in an earlier proceeding. 35. The principal qualification to the general principle that controversies, once quelled, may not be reopened is provided by the appellate system. But even there, the importance of finality pervades the law. Restraints on the nature and availability of appeals, rules about what points may be taken on appeal and rules about when further evidence may be called in an appeal (in particular, the so-called fresh evidence rule are all rules based on the need for finality. As was said in the joint reasons in Coulton v Holcombe: [i]t is fundamental to the due administration of justice that the substantial issues between the parties are ordinarily settled at the trial. 45. Rather, the central justification for the advocate s immunity is the principle that controversies, once resolved, are not to be reopened except in a few narrowly defined circumstances. This is a fundamental and pervading tenet of the judicial system, reflecting the role played by the judicial process in the government of society. If an exception to that tenet were to be created by abolishing that immunity, a peculiar type of relitigation would arise. There would be relitigation of a controversy (already determined) as a result of what had happened during, or in preparation for, the hearing that had been designed to quell that controversy. Moreover, it would be relitigation of a skewed and limited kind (2005) HCA 12. In Gianelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543 at 555.
8 8 Conclusion [25] As may be seen from the above account of the respondent s argument, no authority for the existence of the respondent s cause of action was offered. Instead, the thrust of the respondent s argument was to rely on the alleged harm which might befall if the issue under consideration, albeit novel, were to be decided in the absence of findings of fact after a trial. The fact that no authority can be found which offers direct, or even indirect, support for the respondent s argument in my view is telling. But an even more decisive consideration is that to conclude in favour of the respondent would be to ignore or give insufficient recognition to those principles which seek to bring about finality in litigation and maintain unimpeded access to the courts. To conclude for the respondent would also give rise to the unlikely result that parties with opposed interests pursuing them through an adversarial system which, in a general sense, presupposes that success by one party will cause injury to the other nevertheless have reciprocal duties of care. [26] The respondent s case reveals no demonstrable gap in the common law of negligence which cries out for closure by judicial or legislative intervention. Apart from the considerations discussed already, the tort of abuse of process provides a remedy where proceedings are brought for an improper purpose. And, where it can be demonstrated that there is no sustainable cause of action, no issue to be tried or a threadbare case, courts are increasingly ready to entertain applications for a summary determination of some or all of the issues raised by the proceedings. [27] Even if, contrary to my conclusions, a plaintiff in the normal run of civil proceedings can owe a duty of care to the defendant along the lines of that asserted by the respondent, it would not follow, necessarily, that an appellant in a proceeding under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 ( the Act ) would owe such a duty. The Act contemplates, and even encourages, members of the community to participate in its process. 17 [28] Consistently with this approach, the normal rule in proceedings under the Act is that parties bear their own costs of Planning & Environment Court proceedings. 18 Consequently, in the case of proceedings under the Act the public interest or policy considerations for denying a cause of action for negligent commencement or prosecution of proceedings is, if anything, stronger than in the case of general civil litigation. [29] I conclude that the respondent s claim does not meet the tests propounded in cases such as General Steel Industries v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) and Dey v Victorian Railways Commission and I propose to order that the claim be dismissed and that the respondent pay the applicant s costs of and incidental to the proceedings, including reserved costs, if any, to be assessed on the standard basis See eg s s
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: The Beach Club Port Douglas P/L v Page [2005] QCA 475 PARTIES: THE BEACH CLUB PORT DOUGLAS PTY LTD ACN 106 632 384 (plaintiff/appellant) v GEORGE PAGE (defendant/respondent)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Port Ballidu Pty Ltd v Mullins Lawyers [2017] QSC 91 PARTIES: PORT BALLIDU PTY LTD ACN 010 820 185 (plaintiff) v MULLINS LAWYERS (third defendant) FILE NO/S: No 7459
More informationHIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA GAGELER J PLAINTIFF S3/2013 PLAINTIFF AND MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR DEFENDANTS Plaintiff S3/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] HCA 22 26
More informationTopic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran )
WEEK 3 Topic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran 363-370) Res judicata is a type of plea made in court that precludes the relitgation of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Spain v Commonwealth of Australia [2015] QSC 258 PARTIES: ERIC RAYMOND SPAIN (plaintiff) v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (defendant) FILE NO: 2923 of 2015 DIVISION: PROCEEDING:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Newspapers P/L [2005] QCA 145 MARK ANDREW JACKSON-KNAGGS (applicant/respondent) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY (first
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Taylor v Company Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 309 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 12009 of 2010 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: DAVID JAMES TAYLOR, by his Litigation Guardian BELINDA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Ireland v Trilby Misso Lawyers [2011] QSC 127 PARTIES: COLIN LEO IRELAND Applicant V TRILBY MISSO LAWYERS Respondent FILE NO/S: SC 24 of 2011 DIVISION: PROCEEDING:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Three P/L v Body Corporate for Savoir Faire Community Titles Scheme 3841 [2008] QCA 167 PARTIES: THREE PTY LTD ACN 069 497 516 (respondent/plaintiff/respondent) v
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Schepis & Anor v Esanda Finance Corp Ltd & Anor [2007] QCA 263 PARTIES: ANTHONY SCHEPIS (first plaintiff/first appellant) MICHELE SCHEPIS (second plaintiff/second
More informationNegligence: Approaching the duty of care
Negligence: Approaching the duty of care Introduction: Elements of negligence: - The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. - That the duty must have been breached. - That breach must have caused
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Uzsoki v McArthur [2007] QCA 401 PARTIES: KATHY UZSOKI (plaintiff/respondent) v JOHN McARTHUR (defendant/applicant) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 5896 of 2007 DC No 1699 of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Castillon v P & O Ports Ltd [2005] QCA 406 PARTIES: LEONARD CASTILLON (plaintiff/respondent) v P & O PORTS LIMITED ACN 000 049 301 (defendant/appellant) FILE NO/S:
More informationState Reporting Bureau
Qsc 34^ State Reporting Bureau Queensland Government Department of justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings >pyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Baden-Clay [2013] QSC 351 PARTIES: THE QUEEN (Applicant) FILE NO/S: 467 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: v GERARD ROBERT BADEN-CLAY (Respondent)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Tropac Timbers P/L v A-One Asphalt P/L [2005] QSC 378 PARTIES: TROPAC TIMBERS PTY LTD ACN 108 304 990 (plaintiff/respondent v A-ONE ASPHALT PTY LTD ACN 059 162 186
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Maclag (No 11) P/L & Anor v Chantay Too P/L (No 2) [2009] QSC 299 PARTIES: MACLAG (NO 11) PTY LTD ACN 010 611 631 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BURNS FAMILY TRUST (first plaintiff)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Bourne v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QSC 231 KATRINA MARGARET BOURNE (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Cousins v Mt Isa Mines Ltd [2006] QCA 261 PARTIES: TRENT JEFFERY COUSINS (applicant/appellant) v MT ISA MINES LIMITED ACN 009 661 447 (respondent/respondent) FILE
More informationSUBMISSIONS TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF ATTORNEYS- GENERAL
SUBMISSIONS TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF ATTORNEYS- GENERAL ADVOCATES IMMUNITY 27 May 2005 1. It has been reported that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General ( SCAG ) is to consider the abolition
More informationProfiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors
Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors Author: Tim Wardell Special Counsel Edwards Michael Lawyers Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Watson v WorkCover Queensland & Anor [2005] QSC 225 PARTIES: FILE NO: BS2958 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ROBERT KEITH WATSON (applicant) v WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND (first
More informationInformation about the Multiple Choice Quiz. Questions
LWB145 MULTIPLE CHOICE QUIZ QUESTIONS WEEKS 1 5 Information about the Multiple Choice Quiz The 70 questions are taken from materials prescribed for weeks 1-5 including the Study Guide, lectures, tutorial
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Mowen v Rockhampton Regional Council [2018] QSC 44 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: S449/17 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: BEVAN ALAN MOWEN (Plaintiff) v ROCKHAMPTON
More informationSome ethical questions when opposing parties are. unrepresented or upon ceasing to act as a solicitor
Some ethical questions when opposing parties are unrepresented or upon ceasing to act as a solicitor Monash Guest Lecture in Ethics 9 March 2011 G.T. Pagone * I thought I might talk to you today about
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Stankovic v SS Family Pty Ltd & Anor [2018] QDC 54 PARTIES: MILJAN STANKOVIC (Plaintiff/Respondent) v SS FAMILY PTY LTD ACN 117 147 449 (Trading as Trendbuild ) (Defendant/Applicant)
More informationState Reporting Bureau
State Reporting Bureau \ac03js sc Queensl Government Department of Justice Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Balson v State of Queensland & Anor [2003] QSC 042 PARTIES: FILE NO: SC6325 of 2001 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: CHARLES SCOTT BALSON (plaintiff/respondent)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: No 3696 of 2018 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Midson Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
More informationState Reporting Bureau
[233 QSC >86 Queensl Government Department of Justice Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: O Keefe & Ors v Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service [2016] QCA 205 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE O KEEFE (first appellant) NATHAN IRWIN (second appellant)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 6923 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Holland & Anor. v. Queensland Law Society Incorporated & Anor. [2003] QSC 327 GREGORY IAN HOLLAND
More informationTWO NOTES ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING 'PROXIMITY' IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS PROXIMITY AND NEGLIGENT ADVICE THE SAN SEBASTIAN CASE
TWO NOTES ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING 'PROXIMITY' IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS PROXIMITY AND NEGLIGENT ADVICE THE SAN SEBASTIAN CASE Alex Bruce* 1. Introduction In November 1986, the High Court handed down
More informationQueensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Inc A BRIEF GUIDE TO COSTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Inc A BRIEF GUIDE TO COSTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION January 2005 Preface In a court proceeding, while orders as to costs are ultimately left to the discretion
More informationVICTORIAN BAR SEMINAR PLEADINGS COUNSEL S RESPONSIBILITIES AND RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES
VICTORIAN BAR SEMINAR PLEADINGS COUNSEL S RESPONSIBILITIES AND RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES DATE: VENUE: SPEAKERS: 16 October 2007 5.15 pm to 6.15 pm Neil McPhee Room, Level 1, Owen Dixon Chambers East Will
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and RYAN OLLIVIERRE
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES CIVIL APPEAL NO.27 OF 2001 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: SYLVANUS LESLIE and RYAN OLLIVIERRE Appellant/Plaintiff Respondent/Defendant Before: The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron
More informationTHE IJIABILITY FOR GRATUITOUS ADVICE. By E. I. SYKES, B.A., LL.B.
I THE IJIABILITY FOR GRATUITOUS ADVICE By E. I. SYKES, B.A., LL.B. N Banbury v. The Bank of Montreall Lord Finlay L.C. and Lord Atkinson were r~sponsible for certain obiter dicta regarding a topic which
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Taylor v Stratford & Ors [2003] QSC 427 PARTIES: FILE NO: S6632 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: GLENN NEIL TAYLOR (applicant) v GRAHAM STRATFORD (first respondent) and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Gemini Nominees Pty Ltd v Queensland Property Partners Pty Ltd ATF The Keith Batt Family Trust [2007] QSC 20 PARTIES: GEMINI NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 011 020 536) (plaintiff)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Metway Leasing Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2004] QCA 54 PARTIES: METWAY LEASING LIMITED ACN 002 977 237 (appellant) v COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE (respondent)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL JANIN CARIBBEAN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED. and [1] ERNEST CLARENCE WILKINSON [2] WILKINSON, WILKINSON & WILKINSON
GRENADA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2010/001 JANIN CARIBBEAN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED and [1] ERNEST CLARENCE WILKINSON [2] WILKINSON, WILKINSON & WILKINSON Appellant Respondents Before: The Hon. Mde. Janice
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: In the matter of: ACN 103 753 484 Pty Ltd (in liq) formerly Blue Chip Development Corporation Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 64 TERRY GRANT VAN DER VELDE AND DAVID MICHAEL
More informationBarristers and solicitors immunity confirmed by High Court
INSURANCE & REINSURANCE The High Court has confirmed barristers and solicitors immunity from claims of negligence in the conduct of a case www.aar.com.au Inside: Your publication: If you would prefer to
More informationPublic Authorities and Private Individuals - What Difference?: Romeo v Consemtion Commission of the
Public Authorities and Private Individuals - What Difference?: Romeo v Consemtion Commission of the Northern Territory Susan Barton BALLB student, The University of Queensland Once upon a time public authorities
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: No 5582 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Australian Society of Ophthalmologists & Anor v Optometry Board of Australia [2013] QSC
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Haggarty v Wood (No 2) [2015] QSC 244 PARTIES: JOHN PETER JOSEPH HAGGARTY (first plaintiff/first respondent) AND JUSTIN THOMAS HAGGARTY, SCOTT JON HAGGARTY, DARREN
More informationVICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT Reference: D425/2005
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT Reference: D425/2005 CATCHWORDS Joinder of party - s.60 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 party
More informationSwain v Waverley Municipal Council
[2005] HCA 4 (High Court of Australia) (relevant to Chapter 6, under new heading Role of Judge and Jury, on p 256) In a negligence trial conducted before a judge and jury, questions of law are decided
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Nadao Stott v Lyons and Stott (as executors) [2007] QSC 087 PARTIES: NADAO STOTT (under Part IV, sections 40-44, Succession Act 1981) (applicant) AND FILE NO/S: BS
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Kingston Futures Pty Ltd v Waterhouse [2012] QSC 212 PARTIES: FILE NO: 2611 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: KINGSTON FUTURES PTY LTD (plaintiff) v
More informationWhat s news in construction law 16 June 2006
2 What s news in construction law 16 June 2006 Warranties & indemnities the lessons from Ellington & Tempo services For as long as contracts have existed, issues have arisen in relation to provisions involving
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 4490 of 2010 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: John Holland Pty Ltd v Schneider Electric Buildings Australia Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 159 JOHN HOLLAND
More informationMALCOLM JAMES BEATTIE First Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA773/2013 [2014] NZCA 184 BETWEEN MALCOLM JAMES BEATTIE First Appellant ANTHONY JOSEPH REGAN Second Appellant CT NZ GROUP LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS CARTAN GLOBAL
More informationVan Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police. Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex [2008] UKHL 50, [2009] 1 AC 225 HL
Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police, Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex [2008] UKHL 50, [2009] 1 AC 225 HL Summary Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police From September to December
More informationDistrict Court New South Wales
District Court New South Wales THE TORT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION Introduction 1 To succeed in an action for damages for the tort of malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove four things: (1) That the
More informationMoresi Builders Pty Ltd (ACN )
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. D274/2011 CATCHWORDS Section 6 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 jurisdiction of Tribunal;
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Martinek Holdings Pty Ltd v Reed Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 329 PARTIES: MARTINEK HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 106 533 242 (applicant/appellant) v REED CONSTRUCTION
More informationTOPIC 1 PART 1: The Media and Open Justice
TOPIC 1 PART 1: The Media and Open Justice A. THE PRINCIPLE OF OPEN JUSTICE The constitutional significance of the principle of open justice was first recognised by Lord Shaw in Scott v Scott (1913). It
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Gladstone & District Leagues Club Ltd v Hutson & Ors [2007] QSC 010 GLADSTONE & DISTRICT LEAGUES CLUB LIMITED ACN 010 187 961 (applicant) v ROBERT HUTSON
More informationClient Update June 2008
Highlights Relevance Of This Update Introduction Facts Of The Case High Court Ruling...2 The Decision Of The Court Of Appeal Foreseeability Of Damage Proximity The Class Of Persons Whose Claims Should
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC96000 PROVIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, Respondent. PARIENTE, J. [May 24, 2001] REVISED OPINION We have for review a decision of
More informationPROPOSED REFORMS TO JUDGE-ALONE TRIALS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
251 MANU JAIRETH [(2011) PROPOSED REFORMS TO JUDGE-ALONE TRIALS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY MANU JAIRETH POSTSCRIPT: On 17 February 2011 the ACT Government introduced the Criminal Proceedings Legislation
More informationNegligence Case Law and Notes
Negligence Case Law and Notes Subsections Significance Case Principle Established Duty of Care Original Negligence case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] ac 562 The law takes no cognisance of carelessness in
More informationWhich country? The clearly inappropriate forum test in Australian family law
INTERNATIONAL FAMILY LAW DISPUTES Which country? The clearly inappropriate forum test in Australian family law JACKY CAMPBELL, DECEMBER 2015 Which country? The "clearly inappropriate forum" test in Australian
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: State of Queensland v O Keefe [2016] QCA 135 PARTIES: STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant/appellant) v CHRISTOPHER LAURENCE O KEEFE (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 9321
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Appeal No.411 of 1993
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 005 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Appeal No.411 of 1993 Before The President Mr Justice Davies Justice White [Kelsey and Mansfield v. Hill] BETWEEN: MICHAEL STUART KELSEY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and. BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS ELECTRICITY CORPORATION Respondent
TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2008/010 BETWEEN: BRYON SMITH Appellant and BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS ELECTRICITY CORPORATION Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr. Hugh A. Rawlins The
More informationWeek 2 - Damages in Contract. The plaintiff simply needs to show that there was a breach of contract
Week 2 - Damages in Contract In order for the court to award the plaintiff compensatory damages in contract, it must find that: a) Does the plaintiff have a cause of action in contract (e.g breach of contract)?
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 13832/10 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Queensland Harness Racing Limited & Ors v Racing Queensland Limited & Anor [2012] QSC 34 QUEENSLAND HARNESS RACING
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Perpetual Limited v Registrar of Titles & Ors [2013] QSC 296 PARTIES: PERPETUAL LIMITED (ACN 000 431 827) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PERPETUAL TRUSTEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN
More information2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...
Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued July 9, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00473-CV ROBERT R. BURCHFIELD, Appellant V. PROSPERITY BANK, Appellee On Appeal from the 127th District Court
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Togito Pty Ltd v Pioneer Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2011] QSC 21 TOGITO PTY LTD (plaintiff) v PIONEER INVESTMENTS (AUST) PTY LTD (first defendant)
More information[2006] VCAT 640. Grant Wharington Vero Insurance Limited previously known as Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Australia Limited
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. D176/2005 CATCHWORDS Domestic Building, costs and withdrawal of proceedings, offers of compromise, offers
More informationFOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) ACT
FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) ACT CAP. 7.28 Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act CAP. 7.28 Arrangement of Sections FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) ACT Arrangement of
More informationBefore : LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWCA Crim 1570 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Before : Date: 23/07/2014 LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
More informationNew South Wales Supreme Court
State Crest New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : HEARING DATE(S) : JUDGMENT DATE : JURISDICTION: CORVETINA TECHNOLOGY LTD v CLOUGH ENGINEERING LTD [2004] NSWSC 700 revised - 17/08/2004 29/07/2004 (judgment
More informationTORTS SPECIFIC TORTS NEGLIGENCE
TORTS A tort is a private civil wrong. It is prosecuted by the individual or entity that was wronged against the wrongdoer. One aim of tort law is to provide compensation for injuries. The goal of the
More informationTiming it right: Limitation periods in personal injury claims
July 2011 page 72 Timing it right: Limitation periods in personal injury claims By SIMONE HERBERT-LOWE Simone Herbert-Lowe is a senior claims solicitor with LawCover and is an Accredited Specialist in
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 12888 of 2008 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Taylor v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [2011] QSC 8 SYLVIA PAMELA TAYLOR (appellant)
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. Delivered the 24 th January 2008
Privy Council Appeal No 87 of 2006 Beverley Levy Appellant v. Ken Sales & Marketing Ltd Respondent FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF JAMAICA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Pilot Farm Holdings Pty Ltd v Inbiz Investments Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Pilot Farm Unit Trust [2011] QSC 99 PILOT FARM HOLDINGS PTY LTD (applicant) v INBIZ
More informationLAWS1052 COURSE NOTES
LAWS1052 COURSE NOTES INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND JUSTICE LAWS1052: Introduction to & Justice Course Notes... 1 Chapter 1: THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF AUSTRALIAN LAW... 1 Chapter 15: INTERPRETING STATUTES... 3
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2006-485-751 BETWEEN AND KEITH HUGH NICOLAS BERRYMAN AND MARGARET BERRYMAN Plaintiffs HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY- GENERAL Defendant Hearing: 20 July
More informationProfessional liability of barristers
Professional liability of barristers By Alistmer Abadee 1 This paper presents a survey of certain aspects of the liability of barristers, as affected by some recent appellate court decisions. It also seeks
More informationSUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 20
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 195 ALR 24 The text on pages 893-94 sets out s 474 of the Migration Act, as amended in 2001 in the wake of the Tampa controversy (see Chapter 12); and also refers
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED ON: DELIVERED AT: HEARING DATE: JUDGE: ORDER: CATCHWORDS: Old Newspapers P/L v Acting Magistrate
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC UNDER the Defamation Act Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2014-404-001988 [2014] NZHC 2064 UNDER the Defamation Act 1992 BETWEEN AND RAZDAN RAFIQ Plaintiff THE SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
More informationBefore : LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES. Practice Direction (Costs in Criminal Proceedings) 2015
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Crim 1568 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 29/09/2015 Before : LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
More informationLegal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules under the. Legal Profession Uniform Law
Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 under the Legal Profession Uniform Law The Legal Services Council has made the following rules under the Legal Profession Uniform Law on 26 May
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. BETWEEN MYRTLE CREVELLE, (ADMINISTRATRIX AD LITEM OF THE ESTATE OF CLYDE CREVELLE (deceased)) Appellant AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIV. APP. NO. 45 OF 2007 HCA NO. 117 OF 2003 BETWEEN MYRTLE CREVELLE, (ADMINISTRATRIX AD LITEM OF THE ESTATE OF CLYDE CREVELLE (deceased)) Appellant AND THE ATTORNEY
More informationDAMAGES FOR LATE DELIVERY UNDER TIME CHARTERS: CERTAINTY AT LAST?
DAMAGES FOR LATE DELIVERY UNDER TIME CHARTERS: CERTAINTY AT LAST? Gary Richard Coveney * Introduction In Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (Transfield), 1 the House of Lords examined the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Queensland Nickel Sales Pty Ltd v Glencore International AG & Anor [2016] QSC 269 QUEENSLAND NICKEL SALES PTY LTD (applicant) v GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL AG
More informationTORTS SUMMARY LAWSKOOL PTY LTD
SUMMARY LAWSKOOL PTY LTD CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO NELIGENCE 7 DUTY OF CARE 8 INTRODUCTION 8 ELEMENTS 10 Reasonable foreseeability of the class of plaintiffs 10 Reasonable foreseeability not alone sufficient
More informationProjects Disputes in Australia: Recent Cases
WHITE PAPER June 2017 Projects Disputes in Australia: Recent Cases The High Court of Australia and courts in other Australian States have recently ruled on matters of significant importance to the country
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Smith v Lucht [2014] QDC 302 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: D1983/2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: BRETT CLAYTON SMITH (plaintiff) v KENNETH CRAIG LUCHT (defendant)
More informationIt s a fair cop: Supreme Court reviews duty of care
It s a fair cop: Supreme Court reviews duty of care Patrick West, Barrister, St John s Chambers Published on 14 February 2018 (And a foot note on the Worboys Case) Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
More information2. The application for an order for the payment of interest is refused.
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. D355/2008 CATCHWORDS Costs order in favour of successful party s112 offer outcome less favourable to
More informationImmigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Judicial Review: Emerging Trends & Themes
Immigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Brenda Tronson Barrister Level 22 Chambers btronson@level22.com.au 02 9151 2212 Unreasonableness In December, Bromberg J delivered judgment in
More informationBERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 [made under section 9 of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 and brought into operation on 2 August 1965] TABLE OF CONTENTS
More information