Category Archives: LAW FIRM

Ames & Ames [2009] FamCA 825 | 4 September 2009

ON 4 SEPTEMBER 2009, the Family Court of Australia delivered Ames & Ames [2009] FamCA 825 (4 September 2009)

A father obtained a paternity test of his son without obtaining the mother’s consent. The father had lied to the son about his reasons for taking the swab.

Justice Dawes found that the specimen had been obtained improperly and used her discretion under s138EA to refuse to admit into evidence the laboratory report because of the threat of the integrity of the process as well as the improper way in which the specimen had been obtained.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Han v Stephen Paul Firth trading as Firth The Compensation Lawyers [2014] NSWDC 141

Han v Stephen Paul Firth trading as Firth The Compensation Lawyers [2014] NSWDC 141 (3 September 2014)

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Workers Compensation Amendment (Existing Claims) Regulation 2014 (NSW)

ON 3 SEPTEMBER 2014, the NSW Government made the Workers Compensation Amendment (Existing Claims) Regulation 2014. The regulation reinstated some of the entitlements to weekly payments and medical and related benefits for existing claims (claims made and injuries received before 1 October 2012) which had been removed by the controversial 2012 amendments.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) | 3 September 1990

ON 3 SEPTEMBER 1990, the NSW Mental Health (Forensic Procedures) Act 1990 (formerly known as the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990) commenced.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/mhpa1990355

The significant provisions are found in Part 3, specifically s32.

MENTAL HEALTH (FORENSIC PROVISIONS) ACT 1990 – SECT 32
Persons suffering from mental illness or condition
32 Persons suffering from mental illness or condition

(1) If, at the commencement or at any time during the course of the hearing of proceedings before a Magistrate, it appears to the Magistrate:
(a) that the defendant is (or was at the time of the alleged commission of the offence to which the proceedings relate):
(i) developmentally disabled, or

(ii) suffering from mental illness, or

(iii) suffering from a mental condition for which treatment is available in a mental health facility,
but is not a mentally ill person, and
(b) that, on an outline of the facts alleged in the proceedings or such other evidence as the Magistrate may consider relevant, it would be more appropriate to deal with the defendant in accordance with the provisions of this Part than otherwise in accordance with law,
the Magistrate may take the action set out in subsection (2) or (3).
(2) The Magistrate may do any one or more of the following:
(a) adjourn the proceedings,

(b) grant the defendant bail in accordance with the Bail Act 2013 ,

(c) make any other order that the Magistrate considers appropriate.

(3) The Magistrate may make an order dismissing the charge and discharge the defendant:
(a) into the care of a responsible person, unconditionally or subject to conditions, or

(b) on the condition that the defendant attend on a person or at a place specified by the Magistrate for assessment of the defendant’s mental condition or treatment or both, or

(c) unconditionally.

(3A) If a Magistrate suspects that a defendant subject to an order under subsection (3) may have failed to comply with a condition under that subsection, the Magistrate may, within 6 months of the order being made, call on the defendant to appear before the Magistrate.

(3B) If the defendant fails to appear, the Magistrate may:
(a) issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest, or

(b) authorise an authorised officer within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest.

(3C) If, however, at the time the Magistrate proposes to call on a defendant referred to in subsection (3A) to appear before the Magistrate, the Magistrate is satisfied that the location of the defendant is unknown, the Magistrate may immediately:
(a) issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest, or

(b) authorise an authorised officer within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest.

(3D) If a Magistrate discharges a defendant subject to a condition under subsection (3), and the defendant fails to comply with the condition within 6 months of the discharge, the Magistrate may deal with the charge as if the defendant had not been discharged.

(4) A decision under this section to dismiss charges against a defendant does not constitute a finding that the charges against the defendant are proven or otherwise.

(4A) A Magistrate is to state the reasons for making a decision as to whether or not a defendant should be dealt with under subsection (2) or (3).

(4B) A failure to comply with subsection (4A) does not invalidate any decision of a Magistrate under this section.

(5) The regulations may prescribe the form of an order under this section.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Corporations Amendment (Financial Advice) Bill 2014 (Cth)

ON 2 SEPTEMBER 2014, the Corporations Amendment (Financial Advice) Bill 2014 (Cth) was introduced to the Senate.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Chappel v Hart [1998] HCA 55 | 2 September 1998

ON 2 SEPTEMBER 1998, the High Court of Australia delivered Chappel v Hart [1998] HCA 55; 195 CLR 232; 156 ALR 517; 72 ALJR 1344 (2 September 1998).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/55.html

A procedure to repair a perforation of the oesophagus carried a small inherent risk of infection which could damage the plaintiff’s laryngeal nerve and voice. The patient, who suffered an infection, was not warned of these risks. It was found that had the patient been informed of the risks he would have deferred the procedure and had it performed by a more experienced surgeon.

Using the “common sense” test of causation of March v Stramare (E & M H) Pty Ltd, the High Court held that the patient’s harm was caused by the doctor’s failure to warn of risk rather than a failure with the actual care provided.

The court applied a subjective approach for determining what the patient done had the doctor not been negligent in failing to warn him of the risk.

Per Gaudron J at [32]:

“Furthermore, a defendant is not causally liable, and therefore legally responsible, for wrongful acts or omissions if those acts or omissions would not have caused the plaintiff to alter his or her course of action. Australian law has adopted a subjective theory of causation in determining whether the failure to warn would have avoided the injury suffered. The enquiry as to what the plaintiff would have done if warned is necessarily hypothetical. But if the evidence suggests that the acts of omissions of the defendant would have made no difference to the plaintiff’s course of action, the defendant has not caused the harm which the plaintiff has suffered.”

Per McHugh J at [23]:

“The question of causation is not resolved by philosophical or scientific theories of causation”

The Civil Liability Act 2002 has modified the common law position with regards to the common sense test and subjective approach to causation.


 

<a

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Cash Converters International Limited v Gray [2014] FCAFC 111

ON 1 SEPTEMBER 2014, the Federal Court of Australia delivered Cash Converters International Limited v Gray [2014] FCAFC 111 (1 September 2014).

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by Cash Converters against a decision of a primary judge declining to strike out the Statement of Claim in two proceedings brought against Cash Converters alleging unconscionable and excessive loan fees. The Full Court held that the proceedings had been properly constituted.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Report of the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program

ON 1 SEPTEMBER 2014, Commissioner Ian Hanger AM QC presented the Report of the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Loose-fill asbestos in North Sydney

NORTH SYDNEY COUNCIL has been advised by the Heads of Asbestos Coordinating Authorities (HACA) that some houses in the area might contain loose-filled asbestos insulation supplied by Mr Fluffy from the late 1960’s to 1979.

WorkCover is to appoint an independent investigator to identify and test properties across NSW. Identified homeowners in the North Sydney area will be offered free testing.

The council recommends those who would like to have their roof cavity inspected to engage a Licensed Asbestos Assessor or an Occupational Hygienist who remove a specimen and have it tested at a NATA accredited laboratory at a cost of between $350 and $600. Homeowners are advised to have an assessment before undertaking refurbishment works on walls, ceilings, wall sockets, cornices or sub-floor areas.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

10/50 Vegitation Clearing

ON 1 AUGUST 2014, new laws known as the “10/50 Vegetation Clearing Legislation” were introduced to allow trees to be cleared in designated areas within New South Wales.

The Rural Fires Amendment (Vegetation Clearing) Act 2014 (NSW) amends the Rural Fires Act 1987 (NSW) to permit the owner of land in a 10/50 vegetation clearing entitlement area to:

  • Without approval, clear trees on the property within 10 metres of a home.
  • With approval, clear underlying vegetation (such as shrubs, but not trees) on the property within 50 metres of a home.

The NSW Fire Service has an online tool to work out whether or not a property is in a 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area.

The Rural Fire Service has produced a Code of Practice.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088