Category Archives: LAW FIRM

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence

Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52

ON 20 AUGUST 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52; (1984) 155 CLR 549 (20 August 1984).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/52.html

A plaintiff suffered nervous shock when immediately after an accident she saw her injured husband in hospital and was told of the seriousness of his injuries.

The High Court extended the class of persons to whom a duty of care is owed to those who, although not present at the scene of an accident, are at risk of suffering psychiatric injury by personally perceiving the direct and immediate aftermath of the accident in which a person with whom they are in a “close or intimate relationship” with is negligently injured or killed.

The duty of care was characterised as arising from the injury being reasonably foreseeable and sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, LAW FIRM, Sentencing

Lowe v R [1984] 154 CLR 606

ON 2 AUGUST 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606 (2 August 1984).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/46.html

The case sets out the principle of due proportionality to be imposed by Australian courts when sentencing criminal offenders.

Whilst co-offenders do not have to receive the same sentence for the same offence, any discrepancy must not give the sense or appearance of their being an injustice done to the offender with the heavier sentence.

At 623, Dawson J (with whom WIlson J agreed) said:

“There is no rule of law which requires co-offenders to be given the same sentence for the same offence even if no distinction can be drawn between them. Obviously where the circumstances of each offender or his involvement in the offence are different then different sentences may be called for but justice should be even-handed and it has come to be recognised both here and in England that any difference between the sentences imposed upon co-offenders for the same offence ought not to be such as to give rise to a justifiable sense of a grievance on the part of the offender with the heavier sentence or to give the appearance that justice has not been done.”

The principle is an application of the fundamental principle of equality of justice. At 610, Mason J observed:

“Just as consistency in punishment — a reflection of the notion of equal justice — is a fundamental element in any rational and fair system of criminal justice, so inconsistency in punishment, because it is regarded as a badge of unfairness and unequal treatment under the law, is calculated to lead to an erosion of public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice. It is for this reason that the avoidance and elimination of unjustifiable discrepancy in sentencing is a matter of abiding importance to the administration of justice and to the community.”

The parity principle only applies to co-offenders: per Gibbs CJ at 609, Mason J at 611 and Brennan J at 617-618.

Disparity may be an indicator of appelable error: per Brennan J at 617-618.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Discrimination Law, LAW FIRM, Law reform, Legislation

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)

ON 1 AUGUST 1984, the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 commenced.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1984209/

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Contract, Insurance, Insurance Contracts Act 1984, LAW FIRM, Law reform, Legislation

Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)

ON 25 JUNE 1984, the Commonwealth Insurance Contracts Act 1984 was enacted.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ica1984220/

The Act introduced a range of measures to promote good faith and fairness in contractual dealings between insurers and their insured.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, LAW FIRM

R v Apostilides [1984] HCA 38

ON 19 JUNE 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Apostilides [1984] HCA 38; (1984) 154 CLR 563 (19 June 1984).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/154clr563.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Family Law, Landmark cases, LAW FIRM, Property disputes

Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21

ON 10 APRIL 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21; (1984) 156 CLR 605 (10 April 1984).

Equality had long been the starting point when dividing matrimonial property on divorce.  The High Court in this case held that there is not to be a presumption of equality and that each case is to be determined upon a consideration of it’s particular circumstances.

Section 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) requires consideration of the financial contributions, non-financial contributions and parental and/or homemaker services.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Appeals, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, LAW FIRM

Chamberlain v R (No 2) (“Chamberlain Case”) [1984] HCA 7

ON THIS DAY in 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Chamberlain v R (No 2) (“Chamberlain case”) [1984] HCA 7; (1984) 153 CLR 521 (22 February 1984).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/7.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Alternative Dispute Resolution, Courts and Tribunals, LAW FIRM, Law reform, Legislation

Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW)

ON 1 DECEMBER 1983, the NSW Community Justice Centres Act 1983 commenced.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cjca1983302

 

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Taxation

Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vic) (“Scientology case”) [1983] HCA 40

ON 27 OCTOBER 1983, the High Court of Australia delivered Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vic) (“Scientology case”) [1983] HCA 40; (1983) 154 CLR 120 (27 October 1983).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/40.html

The High Court held that the Church of the New Faith was a religion in Victoria and therefore exempt from pay-roll tax.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Evidence, LAW FIRM, Privilege

Baker v Campbell [1983] HCA 39

ON 26 OCTOBER 1983, the High Court of Australia delivered Baker v Campbell [1983] HCA 39; (1983) 153 CLR 52 (26 October 1983)

The court ruled that legal professional privilege is not confined to actual or expected judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, but may, in the absence of a provision to the contrary, be asserted in investigatory procedures.

Legal Helpdesk

1300 00 2088