Category Archives: LAW FIRM

Equity, Family Law, LAW FIRM, Property disputes, Property Law, Trusts

Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59

ON 10 DECEMBER 1987, the High Court of Australia delivered Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59; (1987) 164 CLR 137 (10 December 1987).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/59.html

The parties had lived together in a de facto relationship. They pooled their earnings to meet all outgoings of the joint relationship, including mortgage payments over the family home purchased with the husband as the only registered proprietor.

After about four years the relationship came to an end. The wife sought a declaration that she held an interest in the property in trust. The husband asserted that only he held the legal title to the property.

The court held that the wife held a beneficial interest in the property by way of constructive trust.

Per Mason CJ, Wilson and Deane JJ at 149:

“The case is accordingly one in which the parties have pooled their earnings for the purposes of their joint relationship, one of the purposes of that relationship being to secure accommodation for themselves and their child. Their contributions, financial and otherwise, to the acquisition of the land, the building of the house, the purchase of furniture and the making of their home, were on the basis of, and for the purposes of, that joint relationship. In this situation the appellant’s assertion, after the relationship had failed, that the Leumeah property, which was financed in part through the pooled funds, is his sole property, is his property beneficially to the exclusion of any interest at all on the part of the respondent, amounts to unconscionable conduct which attracts the intervention of equity and the imposition of a constructive trust at the suit of the respondent.”

The High Court declared that the parties hold beneficial interests in the property of 55% to the husband and 45% to the wife, subject to adjustments.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Environmental Law, International Law, LAW FIRM

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

ON 16 SEPTEMBER 1987, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Lawyer was agreed.

https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-2-a&chapter=27&lang=en

Lawyer
Peter O’Grady
BA, LLB, Grad Cert Leg Prac, Acc Spec Lawyer

 

LAW FIRM

Williams v R [1987] HCA 36

ON 26 AUGUST 1987, the High Court of Australia delivered Williams v R [1987] HCA 36; (1986) 161 CLR 278 (26 August 1987).

Powers of arrest without warrant must be conducted strictly as they interfere with an individual’s liberty. The police must bring an arrested person before a justice without unreasonable delay. The police are not entitled to delay this process to allow time for further questioning or investigation. The police may not arrest a person for the purpose of questioning.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Appeals, Criminal Law, LAW FIRM, United States

Carter v Rafferty 826 F.2d 1299 (1987)

ON 21 AUGUST 1987, the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit delivered Carter v Rafferty 826 F.2d 1299 (1987).

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/826/1299/321412/

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Meaning of "pay", Meaning of "salary"

Rogan v Director General of Technical and Further Education (1987) 10 NSWLR 348

ON 5 AUGUST 1987, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Rogan v Director General of Technical and Further Education (1987) 10 NSWLR 348.

Per McHugh JA at 350:

“The pay of an employee is a wider concept than that of the salary applicable to the office which the employee holds. It concerns every payment made to the employee in his character as an employee in respect of the performance of the duties of his office or position. The allowance in this case was aid to the employee in his capacity as an employee in respect of his duties performed by him on behalf of the employer. That is sufficient to make the allowance part of the ‘pay of the employee'”.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Evidence, LAW FIRM, Privilege

Waterford v Commonwealth [1987] HCA 25

ON 24 JUNE 1987, the High Court of Australia delivered Waterford v Commonwealth [1987] HCA 25; (1987) 163 CLR 54 (24 June 1987).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/163clr54.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Damages, Injunctions, LAW FIRM

Jackson v Sterling Industries [1987] HCA 23

ON 11 JUNE 1987, the High Court of Australia delivered Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd [1987] HCA 23; (1987) 162 CLR 612 (11 June 1987).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/23.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Trade Practices

Re Gollel Holdings Pty Ltd and Allen Matthews Pty Ltd v Kenneth Maurer Funerals Pty Ltd and Kenneth Maurer & Bruce Maurer [1987] FCA 171

Re Gollel Holdings Pty Ltd and Allen Matthews Pty Ltd v Kenneth Maurer Funerals Pty Ltd and Kenneth Maurer & Bruce Maurer [1987] FCA 171 (27 May 1987)

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, LAW FIRM

Morling Report

ON 22 MAY 1987, the report of Commissioner Justice T R Morling of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Chamberlain convictions was released. The report concluded that there was a reasonable doubt as to the Chamberlains’ guilt.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Occupiers Liability, Personal Injury, Torts

Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7

NEGLIGENCE. OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY. INJURY. ON 10 MARCH 1987, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7; (1987) 162 CLR 479 (10 March 1987).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/7.html

An occupier of premises owes a duty of care under the ordinary principles of negligence to take reasonable care for the safety of a person who enters the premises, irrespective of whether they are an invitee, trespasser or licensee.

Per Mason, Wilson, Deane and Dawson JJ at 488:

“We think it is wholly consistent with the trend of recent decisions of this Court touching the law of negligence, both in this area of an occupier’s liability towards entrants on his land and in the areas which were the subject of consideration in San Sebastian Pty. Ltd. v. Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 [1986] HCA 68; (1986) 68 ALR 161 and Cook v. Cook [1986] HCA 73; (1986) 61 ALJR 25; 68 ALR 353, to simplify the operation of the law to accord with the statement of Deane J. in Hackshaw, at pp.662-663:

‘… it is not necessary, in an action in
negligence against an occupier, to go through the
procedure of considering whether either one or
other or both of a special duty qua occupier and an
ordinary duty of care was owed. All that is
necessary is to determine whether, in all the
relevant circumstances including the fact of the
defendant’s occupation of premises and the manner
of the plaintiff’s entry upon them, the defendant
owed a duty of care under the ordinary principles
of negligence to the plaintiff. A prerequisite of
any such duty is that there be the necessary degree
of proximity of relationship. The touchstone of
its existence is that there be reasonable
foreseeability of a real risk of injury to the
visitor or to the class of person of which the
visitor is a member. The measure of the discharge
of the duty is what a reasonable man would, in the
circumstances, do by way of response to the
foreseeable risk.'”

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088