Tag Archives: FIND A LAWYER

“No Names” for Mosman Store

December 4, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

The fit out of the Legal Helpdesk store in Bridgepoint Mosman is up to day 8. We hoped to be in this week but works will carry over until next week.

Eric Horsfield of Great City Signs paid us a visit this morning and has fixed white vinyl to the glass. Receiving an urgent call from Matt Moran at Opera Bar, Eric has ducked off with a promise to be back early next week to fix the Legal Helpdesk signage. Until then we will be known as “No Names”.

Tony Laurent architect is dropping by this afternoon to finalise the colour scheme. Zelko and his Russian painters are expected in over the weekend. The carpet is travelling up the Hume Highway as I write this and should be laid by Monday.

Let’s hope we are up and running by this time next week!

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM

New High Court appointment

December 4, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

Justice Geoffrey Nettle of the Victorian Court of Appeal has been appointed to the High Court of Australia. He will replace Justice Susan Crennan.

<a href=”http://legalhelpdesklawyers.com.au”><img class=”alignnone wp-image-8046″ src=”https://legalhelpdesklawyers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/button-logo-41.jpg?w=150″ alt=”Lawyers” width=”50″ height=”50″ /></a>
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM

Productivity Commission report: Access to Justice Arrangements

December 3, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

The Productivity Commission today released its eagerly awaited report, Access to Justice Arrangements.

For a copy of the report visit http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/access-justice/report

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Taxation

Commissioner of Taxation v MBI Properties Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 49

December 3, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

The High Court of Australia today delivered Commissioner of Taxation v MBI Properties Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 49 (3 December 2014). http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/49.html

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Trademarks

Cantarella Bros Pty Limited v Modena Trading Pty Limited [2014] HCA 48

December 3, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

The High Court of Australia today delivered Cantarella Bros Pty Limited v Modena Trading Pty Limited [2014] HCA 48 (3 December 2014). http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/48.html

Cantarella Bros Pty Limited and Modena Trading Pty Limited both advertise, offer for sale and sell coffee products in Australia. Since 1958, Cantarella has imported, processed and packaged coffee beans for sale under the trade marks VITTORIA, AURORA, DELTA and CHICCO D’ORO. It is also the registered proprietor of trade marks including MEDAGLIA D’ORO, ORO (ie “Gold”) and CINQUE STELLE (ie “Five Stars”). These trade marks are used in Australia and other countries.

Modena imports coffee from Molinari, an Italian company. Molinari has used various trademarks in Australia including ORO, QUALITY ORO and CINQUE STELLE.

Canteralla brought proceedings in the Federal Court against Modena for trade mark infringement. Modena cross claimed that Canteralla’s trade marks should be cancelled on the grounds that they were not inherently adapted to distinguish the goods for which they were registered under s41 of the Trade Marks Act (1995) (Cth). Canteralla succeeded in the Federal Court.

The Full Court of the Federal Court allowed an appeal by Modena, holding that Cantellara’s trade marks should be cancelled.

The High Court of Australia allowed an appeal brought by Canteralla, holding that their trade marks had been inherently adapted to distinguish the goods for which they were registered from the goods of other persons. The High Court ordered that the Full Court’s orders be set aside.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Consumer Law

ACCC launches petrol price savings website

December 3, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

The ACCC today launched a website which provides information that will allow motorists to pick the best time in a price cycle to refuel, promising savings of up to 20 cents per litre.

For more information visit https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/petrol-diesel-and-lpg/petrol-price-cycles

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Disability Law, LAW FIRM

International Day of Persons with a Disability

December 3, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

DECEMBER 3 is the United Nations International Day of Persons with a Disability.

For more information visit http://www.idpwd.com.au/3-december/ and https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/events/international-day-persons-disability

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Bias, Constitutional law, LAW FIRM, United Kingdom

Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians (“Dr Bonham’s case”) 8 Co Rep 107a; 77 Eng Rep 638 | 1 December 1610

December 1, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 1 DECEMBER 1610, the Chief Justice of the English Court of Common Pleas, Sir Edward Coke, delivered Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians 8 Co Rep 107a; 77 Eng Rep 638.

Dr Bonham had been fined and imprisoned by the Royal College of Physicians for continuing to practise as a Physician in London. He brought a case for false imprisonment.

Coke CJ held that Charter granted by the Parliament to the College of Surgeons was invalid due to bias.

Coke CJ at 118a ruled:

“The censors cannot be judges, ministers, and parties; judges to give
sentence or judgment; ministers to make summons; and parties to have the
moiety of the forfeiture…”

Coke CJ at 118a said:

“It appears in our books that in many cases the common law will control acts of Parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such an act to be void.”

The case establishes the rule against bias as a constitutional limit on the exercise of parliament’s legislative powers. In short, (1) a person may not be a judge in their own case and (2) an Act of Parliament is invalid if it conflicts with a basic principle of the common law (such as that a person may not be a judge in their own case).

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Evidence, LAW FIRM, Practice and Procedure

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL) | 28 November 1893

November 28, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 28 NOVEMBER 1893, the House of Lords delivered Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL).

A party who cross-examines a witness must, out of fairness, “put it” to the witness any contradiction they suggest arises from their evidence in order to give them an opportunity to explain the contradiction.

Per Lord Herschell at 70-71:

“…it seems to me to be absolutely essential to the proper conduct of a cause, where it is intended to suggest that a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct his attention to the fact by some questions put in cross-examination showing that imputation is intended to be made, and not to take his evidence and pass it by as a matter altogether unchallenged and, then, when it is impossible for him to explain…to argue that he is a witness unworthy of credit.”

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088