Janian v Mosman Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 549 (31 August 2006).
Tag Archives: FIND A LAWYER
Janian v Mosman Municipal Council
Janian v Mosman Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 549 (31 August 2006).
Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Trendlen Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 42
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.
1300 00 2088
Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Limited [2006] HCA 41
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.
1300 00 2088
Linney v Mosman Municipal Council
Linney v Mosman Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 525 (14 August 2006).
8 Delecta Avenue, Mosman NSW 2088
Linney v Mosman Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 525 (14 August 2006).
Matar v Neutral Bay Foodhall and Others
Matar v Neutral Bay Foodhall and Others [1996] IRCA 355 (26 July 1996).
Smits v Roach [2006] HCA 36
ON 20 JULY 2006, the High Court of Australia delivered Smits v Roach [2006] HCA 36; (2006) 228 ALR 262; (2006) 80 ALJR 1309 (20 July 2006).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2006/36.html
The High Court held that the NSW Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the appellant was estopped from raising a conflict of interest as it’s senior counsel had waived the right to object at the start of the proceedings. The High Court held that the appellant was bound by the conduct of it’s senior counsel on the question of waiver.
The court also held that in determining bias on the part of a judicial officer, the appeal court must (1) identify why a judge might have decided the case in a manner other than on its legal or factual merits, and (2) explain the logical connection between the matter complained of and the feared deviation from impartial decision making.
1300 00 2088
Bathers Pavillion, Balmoral Beach
SEATON v. MOSMAN COUNCIL [1996] NSWLEC 195 (19 July 1996).
74 Avenue Road, Mosman NSW 2088
Hosking Munro Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 364 (7 June 2006).
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 