Category Archives: LAW FIRM

LAW FIRM, Legal Aid

LawAccess NSW Free Legal Help 1300 888 529

ON 1 SEPTEMBER 2014, the NSW Attorney General Brad Hazzard announced that LawAccess, the NSW free legal information service, , has taken 2 million calls since its establishment in September 2001.

LawAccess is a partnership between the Department of Justice, Legal Aid NSW, Law Society of NSW and the NSW Bar Association. It is available to everyone in New South Wales.

LAwAccess can be contacted on 1300 888 529 or www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au.

Common enquiries to LawAccess include family law child arrangements, debt, domestic violence, neighbourhood disputes, wills and divorce.

Since 2010, LawAccess has operated LawAssist, a website for people who represent themselves in courts and tribunals. More than 1.2 million people have visited that site since 2010.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Defences, Estoppel, LAW FIRM, Practice and Procedure

Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45 | 1 September 1981

ON 1 SEPTEMBER 1981, the High Court of Australia delivered Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45; (1981) 147 CLR 589 (1 September 1981).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1981/45.html

A party may be estopped (ie barred) from litigating a claim that could have been litigated in previous proceedings if it was unreasonable for the claim not to have been so litigated or if the new proceedings would result in an inconsistency with the earlier decision.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Constiutional law, LAW FIRM

APLA Limited v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) [2005] HCA 44 | 1 September 2005

ON 1 SEPTEMBER 2005, the High Court of Australia delivered APLA Limited v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) [2005] HCA 44; 224 CLR 322; 79 ALJR 1620; 219 ALR 403 (1 September 2005).

The plaintiffs brought proceedings challenging the constitutional validity of regulations made under Part 14 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) banning lawyers from advertising their services for personal injury claims.

Clause 139 provided:

“(1) A barrister or solicitor must not publish or cause or permit to be published an advertisement that includes any reference to or depiction of any of the following:

(a) personal injury,

(b) any circumstance in which personal injury might occur, or any activity, event or circumstance that suggests or could suggest the possibility of personal injury, or any connection to or association with personal injury or a cause of personal injury,

(c) a personal injury legal service (that is, any legal service that relates to recovery of money, or any entitlement to recover money, in respect of personal injury).

Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units.

(2) A contravention of this clause by a barrister or solicitor is declared to be professional misconduct.”

The plaintiffs argued that the regulations infringe various provisions of the Constitution including the guarantee of freedom of communication on political matters, free trade and the rule of law.

The High Court ruled that the regulations are constitutionally valid.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Constitutional law, Constiutional law, LAW FIRM

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”) [1920] HCA 54 | 31 August 1920

ON 31 AUGUST 1920, the High Court of Australia delivered Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”) [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129 (31 August 1920).

Prior to the Engineers’ case, the High Court had held that the States had reserved powers and their instrumentalities were immune from Commonwealth interference. In the Engineers Case, the High Court held that, through a literal interpretation of the Constitution, the Commonwealth Parliament has the power to make laws with respect to conciliation and arbitration, allowing the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to regulate the wages and conditions of employees of the State of Western Australia.

The case is significant because of the High Court’s adoption of a literal approach to constitutional interpretation. Per Higgins at 161-2:

“The fundamental rule of interpretation, to which all others are subordinate, is that a statute is to be expounded according to the intent of the Parliament that made it; and that intention has to be found by an examination of the language used in the statute as a whole. The question is, what does the language mean; and when we find what the language means, in its ordinary and natural sense, it is our duty to obey that meaning, even if we consider the result to be inconvenient or impolitic or improbable.”

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Damages, LAW FIRM, Personal Injury

Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45 | 31 August 1977

ON 31 AUGUST 1977, the High Court of Australia delivered Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45; (1977) 139 CLR 161 (31 August 1977).

Damages – Personal injuries – Assessment – Permanent disablement – Services provided to plaintiff gratuitously – Whether damages recoverable in respect of gratuitous services – Measure of damages – Market cost of provision of services or loss suffered by person providing them – Whether damages held in trust for person providing services.

At common law, a person disabled by the fault of another may recover damages for the commercial value of any necessary nursing and domestic services provided gratuitously by a friend or relative.

Legislation such as the Civil Liability Acts modify the common law, limiting the circumstances of entitlement and the amounts that may be claimed.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM

Report of the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program

The report of the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program is due today, 31 August 2014.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Litigation funding

Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Trendlen Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 42 | 30 August 2006

ON 30 AUGUST 2006, the High Court of Australia delivered Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Trendlen Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 42; (2006) 229 ALR 51 (30 August 2006)

The High Court ruled that one petrol retailer could not commence  proceedings to recover invalid petroleum licensing fees on the basis that other retailers would join the proceedings later.

For the same reasons as those expressed in Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Limited [2006] HCA 41; (2006) 229 ALR 58; (2006) 80 ALJR 1441 (30 August 2006), the High Court held that an agreement with a non-party to fund the costs of a party’s legal proceedings in return for reward (ie litigation funding) was not in itself an abuse of process or contrary to public policy.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Litigation funding

Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Limited [2006] HCA 41 | 30 August 2006

ON 30 AUGUST 2006, the High Court of Australia delivered Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Limited [2006] HCA 41; (2006) 229 ALR 58; (2006) 80 ALJR 1441 (30 August 2006).

The High Court ruled that representative proceedings brought in the Supreme Court of NSW by seven retailers to recover tobacco licence fees from Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd and other tobacco wholesalers were not in accordance with the Court Rules.

The court held that an agreement with a non-party to fund the costs of a party’s legal proceedings in return for reward (ie litigation funding) was not in itself an abuse of process or contrary to public policy.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Negligence

Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42 | 30 August 2007

ON 30 AUGUST 2007, the High Court of Australia delivered Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42 (30 August 2007).

Mr Dederer became a partial paraplegic when at the age of 14 he dived from a bridge into the Wollamba River, striking a sandbank.

Dederer sued the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Great Lakes Shire Council for damages arising from their alleged negligence.

The Supreme Court of NSW awarded damages of $840,000, finding contributory negligence of the plaintiff in the order of 25%. The damages were apportioned with the RTA to pay 80% and the council 20%. The NSW Court of Appeal upheld an appeal against the decision against the council and dismissed an appeal oft the decision against the RTA but increased the contributory negligence from 25% to 50%.

The RTA appealed to the High Court of Australia. Dederer cross appealed against the increase in contributory negligence.

The High Court upheld the RTA’s appeal and dismissed the cross appeal. The court held that the duty of care to exercise reasonable care does not impose an obligation to prevent potentially harmful conduct. The court found that the RTA’s duty was to ensure that the road is safe for users taking reasonable care for their own safety. The RTA was held to have reasonably responded to the risk by erecting “no diving” signs. The court found that erecting fences would not necessarily stop people from diving or jumping from bridges.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Practice and Procedure

Shannon v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] FCAFC 108

Shannon v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] FCAFC 108 (29 August 2014)

Lawyers

1300 00 2088