Gerard Baden-Clay has been found guilty of murdering his wife, Allison Baden-Clay.
1300 00 2088
All posts by Legal Helpdesk Lawyers
DJM and JLM [1998] FamCA 97 | 15 July 1998
ON 15 JULY 1998, the Family Court of Australia delivered DJM and JLM [1998] FamCA 97 (15 July 1998).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/1998/97.html
The court considered a number of issues including the determination of the pool of assets and how to treat a post separation change of employment resulting in a voluntary reduction of earnings less than one’s earning capacity.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd [1982] UKHL 4 | 15 July 1982
ON 15 JULY 1982, the House of Lords delivered Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd [1982] UKHL 4 (15 July 1982).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1982/4.html
Junior Books contracted with a business to lay a composite flooring in their factory. Veitchi was sub-contracted to do the work. The work was defective so Junior Books sued Veitchi, not the main contractor, for damages including the cost of replacing the floor and consequential business interruption. The claim was based in tort as there was no contractual relationship between Junior Books and Veitchi.
The House of Lords held that there was sufficient proximity between Junior Books and Veitchi to establish a duty of care and no reason to restrict that duty.
The House of Lords accepted that pure economic loss may be foreseeable when there is a sufficient degree of proximity between the parties.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm) [1998] FCA 806 | 14 July 1998
ON 14 JULY 1998, the Federal Court of Australia delivered White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm) [1998] FCA 806 (14 July 1998).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1998/806.html
Flower & Hart (a firm of lawyers) was ordered to pay the legal costs of White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd who had been sued by Flower & Hart’s client, Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (in liquidation).
Proceedings alleging misleading and deceptive conduct, fraud and negligence had been brought by Caboolture Park for the ulterior purpose of delaying payment of monies due under a building contract. The solicitor for Caboolture Park, Michael Meadows, held the view that the proceedings did not have any prospects or any substantial prospects of success but nevertheless advised his client to proceed in order to secure a bargaining position against White Industries.
Goldberg held that:
- the proceedings were not brought for a legitimate purpose of vindicating a right but rather, they had no prospects of success and were brought to postpone or delay the ultimate determination of the legitimate claim of White Industries.
- it was unreasonable to make the allegations in circumstances where there was no factual basis and no consideration was given as to whether or not there was a factual basis.
- it was unreasonable for the solicitors to initiate and continue the proceedings as they amounted to an abuse of process and oppressive conduct.
- it was unreasonable for the solicitor to shelter behind the advice of counsel, Ian Callinan QC.
As the impetus came from the solicitor, his Honour ordered that they pay the legal costs of White Industries, on an indemnity basis.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Rippon v Chilcotin [2001] NSWCA 142 | 13 July 2001
ON 13 JULY 2001, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Rippon v Chilcotin [2001] NSWCA 142 (13 July 2001).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2001/142.html
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by a firm of accountants against the NSW District Court’s decision to refuse to stay and dismiss proceedings brought by a purchaser of a business who had been unsuccessful in earlier proceedings against the vendor.
The Court of Appeal set aside the District Court’s decision and dismissed the purchaser’s proceedings on the grounds that they were an abuse of process.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
St George Bank – A Division of Westpac Banking Corporation v Diakakis [2014] NSWSC 928
ON 11 JULY 2014, the Supreme Court of NSW delivered St George Bank – A Division of Westpac Banking Corporation v Diakakis [2014] NSWSC 928.
http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172646
The court granted St George Bank an order for possession of a home unit at Unit 2, 259-261 Maroubra Road, Maroubra as the defendant was unable to demonstrate any unfairness or unjustness.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Masters Home Improvement Australia Pty Ltd v Bunnings Limited [2014] NZIPOTM 32
He Kaw Teh v R [1985] HCA 43 | 11 July 1985
ON 11 JULY 1985, the High Court of Australia delivered He Kaw Teh v R [1985] HCA 43; (1985) 157 CLR 523 (11 July 1985).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/43.html
Even if a statute does not indicate that intent is an element of a grave criminal offence, it is to be presumed that intent is an element to be proved by the prosecution. In cases of possession, knowledge of the goods being in the accused’s custody is a necessary element and therefore knowledge must be proved by the prosecution.
In this case, the accused claimed that he did not know that he was in possession of heroin and therefore did not knowingly bring it into the country in contravention of the Customs Act.
Finding that the provision required proof of knowledge and intent, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to determine the questions of knowledge and intent in accordance with the High Court’s judgment.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Samadi Developments Pty Limited v City of Sydney Council [2014] NSWLEC 1138
ON 11 JULY 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Samadi Developments Pty Limited v City of Sydney Council [2014] NSWLEC 1138.
http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172691
Sydney City Council had refused a development application for two three bedroom units at 517-527 Elizabeth Street, Surry Hills. The Land and Environment Court upheld an appeal against the decision, granting the consent subject to conditions.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Jones v Grech [2001] NSWCA 208 | 10 July 2001
ON 10 JULY 2001, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Jones v Grech [2001] NSWCA 208 (10 July 2001).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2001/208.html
The parties had been involved in a series of de facto relationships with each other over a 32 year period. The Supreme Court made a property adjustment order that took into consideration contributions made only in the last period of cohabitation. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that contributions made prior to the last period of cohabitation could be considered.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 