All posts by Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

Solicitor of the Supreme Court of NSW, Federal Court and High Court of Australia. Public Notary in the State of New South Wales.
Contract, False imprisonment, LAW FIRM, Torts

Sydney Solicitors

ON 18 DECEMBER 1906, the High Court of Australia delivered Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson [1906] HCA 83; (1906) 4 CLR 379 (18 December 1906).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1906/83.html

A party who wishes to rely on a contractual term is required to show that it did all that was reasonable to bring term to the other party’s attention.

The plaintiff was not considered to have been falsely imprisoned by the ferry terminal’s turnstiles as he was considered to be free to leave the premises by water.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Professional negligence

Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (Reg) and Hill v Van Erp [1997] HCA 8 | 18 March 1997

ON THIS DAY IN 1997, the High Court of Australia delivered Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (Reg) [1997] HCA 8; (1997) 188 CLR 241; (1997) 142 ALR 750; (1997) 71 ALJR 448 (18 March 1997) and Hill v Van Erp [1997] HCA 9; (1997) 188 CLR 159; (1997) 142 ALR 687; (1997) 71 ALJR 487 (18 March 1997).

Professional advisors will be liable for economic loss suffered by non-clients in cases where there has been a failure by the advisor to properly perform the duty (eg failing to ensure that audited accounts met accounting standards in Esanda; and failing to ensure that a will was validly signed in Van Erp).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/8.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/9.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Constitutional law, Human Rights, LAW FIRM

Ex parte Ogden [1893] NSWLawRp 22 | 17 March 1893

ON THIS DAY in 1893 the Supreme Court of NSW delivered Ex parte Ogden [1893] NSWLawRp 22; (1893) 14 LR (NSW) 86.  

Married women and aliens were considered to be under a disability that prevented them from voting in municipal elections.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLawRp/1893/22.pdf

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Environmental Law, Local Government, Planning Law

Chidiac v Mosman Council [2015] NSWLEC 1044

ON 16 MARCH 2015, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Chidiac v Mosman Council [2015] NSWLEC 1044 (16 March 2015).

“DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: development standards for height and floor space ratio; adequacy of applications to justify contravention of standards; compatibility of proposed development with objectives of the standards and the objectives of the R3 zone; desired future character of the area; view impacts; amenity of proposed dwellings”

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2015/1044.html

The Court dismissed an appeal against Mosman Council’s deemed refusal of a Development Application for demolition of existing structures at 1 Musgrave Street, Mosman and the erection of a five level residential flat building above two levels of basement car parking.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Constitutional law, LAW FIRM

Attorney-General (NSW) v Trethowan [1931] HCA 3 | 16 March 1931

ON THIS DAY IN 1931 the High Court of Australia delivered Attorney-General (NSW) v Trethowan [1931] HCA 3; (1931) 44 CLR 394 ( 16 March  1931).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1931/3.htm

In 1929, the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) was amended with the enactment of s7A, which contained a manner and form provision that a bill for the abolition of the NSW upper house (Legislative Council) could not be presented to the Governor for Royal Assent unless the bill was passed by both houses of the state parliament and then approved by a popular referendum.

In 1931, both houses passed a bill for the abolition of s7A and a bill for the abolition of the Legislative Council. The bill for the abolition of the Legislative Council was not approved by popular referendum.

Before the bills could be presented to the Governor for Royal Assent, Trethowan and another councillor obtained a decree from the NSW Supreme Court which in effect restrained the Government from presenting the bills to the Governor. The persons restrained (the defendants) included the NSW Attorney-General, the President of the Legislative Council, the Premier and the other Ministers of the Crown for NSW.

The High Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by the defendants, upholding the validity and binding effect of s7A.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Appeals, Criminal Law

CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9 (11 March 2015)

ON 11 MARCH 2015 the High Court of Australia delivered CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9 (11 March 2015).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/9.html

The High Court allowed an appeal against a decision of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal to impose a custodial sentence, remitting the matter to the CCA for re-determination.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, LAW FIRM, Legislation

Section 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1998

ON THIS DAY IN 1929, section 10 of the NSW Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (formerly known as section 556A of the Crimes Act 1900) was added to the Crimes Act 1900 through the passage of the Crimes (Amendment) Act 1929 No 2.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/ca1929n2189

As at 12 March 2015, s10 provides:

Dismissal of charges and conditional discharge of offender
10 Dismissal of charges and conditional discharge of offender

(1) Without proceeding to conviction, a court that finds a person guilty of an offence may make any one of the following orders:
(a) an order directing that the relevant charge be dismissed,
(b) an order discharging the person on condition that the person enter into a good behaviour bond for a term not exceeding 2 years,
(c) an order discharging the person on condition that the person enter into an agreement to participate in an intervention program and to comply with any intervention plan arising out of the program.
(2) An order referred to in subsection (1) (b) may be made if the court is satisfied:
(a) that it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment (other than nominal punishment) on the person, or
(b) that it is expedient to release the person on a good behaviour bond.
(2A) An order referred to in subsection (1) (c) may be made if the court is satisfied that it would reduce the likelihood of the person committing further offences by promoting the treatment or rehabilitation of the person.
(2B) Subsection (1) (c) is subject to Part 8C.
(3) In deciding whether to make an order referred to in subsection (1), the court is to have regard to the following factors:
(a) the person’s character, antecedents, age, health and mental condition,
(b) the trivial nature of the offence,
(c) the extenuating circumstances in which the offence was committed,
(d) any other matter that the court thinks proper to consider.
(4) An order under this section has the same effect as a conviction:
(a) for the purposes of any law with respect to the revesting or restoring of stolen property, and
(b) for the purpose of enabling a court to give directions for compensation under Part 4 of the Victims Compensation Act 1996 , and
(c) for the purpose of enabling a court to give orders with respect to the restitution or delivery of property or the payment of money in connection with the restitution or delivery of property.
(5) A person with respect to whom an order under this section is made has the same right to appeal on the ground that the person is not guilty of the offence as the person would have had if the person had been convicted of the offence.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Appeals, Criminal Law

CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9 (11 March 2015)

ON 11 MARCH 2015 the High Court of Australia delivered CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9 (11 March 2015).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/9.html

The High Court allowed an appeal against a decision of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal to impose a custodial sentence, remitting the matter to the CCA for re-determination.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Corporations Law, Practice and Procedure

Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v Fletcher: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v Fletcher [2015] HCA 8

ON 11 MARCH 2015, the High Court of Australia delivered Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v Fletcher: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v Fletcher [2015] HCA 8 (11 March 2015).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/8.html

The High Court held that rule 36.16(2)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) could not be utilised to vary the time for the bringing of proceedings for orders with respect to voidable transactions under s588FF(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Appeals, Criminal Law

Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Limited v Fletcher [2015] HCA 10

ON 11 MARCH 2015 the High Court of Australia delivered Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Limited v Fletcher [2015] HCA 10 (11 March 2015).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/10.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088