Category Archives: LAW FIRM

Administrative Law, Appeals, LAW FIRM, Remedies

R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Ltd | High Court of Australia | 9 August 1949

ON 9 AUGUST 1949, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Ltd [1949] HCA 33; (1949) 78 CLR 389 (9 August 1949).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1949/33.html

A court has a discretion to withhold the granting of a writ of mandamus:

“For example the writ may not be granted if a more convenient and satisfactory remedy exists, if no useful result could ensue, if the party has been guilty of unwarrantable delay or if there has been bad faith on the part of the applicant, either in the transaction out of which the duty to be enforced arises or towards the court to which the application is made. The court’s discretion is judicial and if the refusal of a definite public duty is established, the writ issues unless circumstances appear making it just that the remedy should be withheld.” (at 400).

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Contract, Employer's liability, Employment Law, LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Negligence, Work injuries

Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44 | 9 August 2001

ON 9 AUGUST 2001, the High Court of Australia delivered Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44; 207 CLR 21; 75 ALJR 1356; 106 IR 80; 181 ALR 263 (9 August 2001).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/44.html

The plaintiff was a pedestrian who was injured when a bike courier collided with him on a footpath.  The defendant was the courier company who engaged the cyclist. The company denied liability for the pedestrian’s injuries on the basis that the cyclist was an independent contractor. The trial judge awarded damages to the pedestrian, finding that the cyclist was an employee. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the company, finding that the cyclist was an independent contractor.

The High Court allowed an appeal by the cyclist,  holding that the cyclist was not an independent contractor because:

  • no discretion to accept or reject work.
  • stringent roster system.
  • clear rules on taking annual leave.
  • little or no scope for freelancing.
  • no special skills.
  • cyclists were identified with the company with uniforms and a dress code.
  • pay and conditions were consistent with an employment relationship.
  • no scope for bargaining of rates.
  • the provision of the bikes as necessary tools and equipment was not inconsistent with an employment relationship
  • the exercise of control by the company over the courier’s activities.

The relevant considerations for determining whether or not a person is an independent contractor include:

Family provision, LAW FIRM, Succession

Underwood v Gaudron [2014] NSWSC 1055

ON 7 AUGUST 2014, the Supreme Court of NSW delivered Underwood v Gaudron [2014] NSWSC 1055 (7 August 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/1055.html

The plaintiff Helen Underwood brought proceedings seeking a family provision order under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) with respect to the estate or notional estate of her late mother. Named as defendants were her sisters, Mary Genevieve Gaudron (the former High Court justice) and Kathryn Teresa Gaudron.

The plaintiff had no contact with the deceased for 20 years, the estate was relatively small and had already been distributed. The proceedings were commenced more than 3 years after the deceased’s death.

Justice Hallen dismissed the summons with the intention of making no orders made as to costs.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Planning Law

Jojeni Investments Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2014] NSWLEC 120

ON 8 AUGUST 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Jojeni Investments Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2014] NSWLEC 120.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=173276

The applicant brought Class 4 proceedings seeking a declaration that the property has the benefit of existing use rights as a residential flat building. Mosman Council opposed the summons.

Justice Sheahan found in favour of the council and made a declaration that the property known as 7 Arbutus Street, Mosman, has the benefit of existing use rights as two flats in a house, not as a residential flat building.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Legal Aid, Uncategorized

Salvos Legal wins 2014 Law Firm of the Year Award

ON 8 AUGUST 2014, Salvos Legal won the 2014 Law Firm of the Year Award. For more information go to: http://www.salvoslegal.com.au/news/show/122

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Planning Law

Murdoch v Woollahra Municipal Council [2014] NSWLEC 1165

ON 8 AUGUST 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Murdoch v Woollahra Municipal Council [2014] NSWLEC 1165.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=173508

The court upheld two appeals by Lachlan Murdoch against decisions of Woollahra Council with respect to additions and alterations to premises at 93 Victoria Road, Belleview Hill.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Bankruptcy, Injunctions, LAW FIRM, Practice and Procedure

Bell v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] FCA 934

Bell v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] FCA 934 (8 August 2014)

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Family Law, LAW FIRM

16th National Family Law Conference: 7-10 October

The Law Council of Australia 16th National Family Law Conference will be held at the Hilton Hotel Sydney from 7-10 October.

Australian speakers include:

  • The Hon. George Brandis QC, Commonwealth Attorney-General
  • The Hon. Justice Diana Bryant AO, Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia.
  • The Hon. Justice John Pascoe AO CVO, Chief Judge of Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
  • The Hon. Justice Paul Le Gay Brereton AM RFD, Supreme Court of NSW.
  • Ms Megan Mitchell, National Children’s Commissioner.
  • Prof. George Williams AO, Anthony Mason Professor, University of NSW.

International speakers include:

  • Justice Paul Ryan, High Court, Ireland.
  • Prof. Richard Susskind OBE.

All members of the legal profession are invited to attend.

For more information go to http://www.familylawconference2014.com.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Courts and Tribunals, Judges, LAW FIRM

Ceremonial welcome for new Chief Judge

ON 14 AUGUST 2014, at 9am, the new Chief Judge of the District Court of NSW, the Hon Justice Derek Price AM, will be welcomed with a formal ceremony in the Banco Court.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Negligence

Chapman v Hearse [1961] HCA 46 | 8 August 1961

ON 8 AUGUST 1961, the High Court of Australia delivered Chapman v Hearse [1961] HCA 46; (1961) 106 CLR 112 (8 August 1961).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1961/46.html

Chapman negligently drove his vehicle causing it to collide with another vehicle and overturn. Chapman was ejected from his vehicle and came to rest unconscious on the roadway. Dr Cherry came to Chapman’s assistance but was struck and fatally injured by a vehicle driven by Hearse who had negligently failed to see him.

The executor or the estate of Dr Cherry sued Hearse in the Supreme Court of South Australia for damages arising from the doctor’s death.

The Chief Justice of the South Australian Supreme Court found Hearse to be liable, ordering him to pay damages but also ordered that Chapman should contribute one quarter of that sum.

Chapman appealed to the South Australian Court of Appeal, who dismissed the appeal.

Chapman appealed against the decision in the High Court, arguing that (1) Chapman owed Dr Cherry no duty of care as it was not reasonably foreseeable (2) Dr Cherry’s death was caused solely by the negligence of Hearse and (3) the damage was to remote in any case.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. On the questions of duty and remoteness, the High Court held that Chapman did owe Dr Cherry a duty of care as it was “sufficient in the circumstances of this case to ask whether a consequence of the same general character as that which followed was reasonably foreseeable as one not unlikely to follow a collision between two vehicles on a dark wet night upon a busy highway”. In essence, the court held that one is liable for all damage which is of the same general nature as that which could be reasonably foreseen.

On the question of causation, the court held that a wrongful intervening act does not of itself break the chain of causation as long as the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088