Rothwell v Mosman Municipal Council [2003] NSWLEC 348 (10 October 2003).
Tag Archives: LOWER NORTH SHORE
In the matter of a claim for relief relating to the dismissal of Nanda Abeysinghe by Mosman Municipal Council
In the matter of a claim for relief relating to the dismissal of Nanda Abeysinghe by Mosman Municipal Council [2003] NSWIRComm 1044 (25 September 2003).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWIRComm/2003/1044.html
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52
ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2003, the High Court of Australia delivered Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52; 216 CLR 327; 201 ALR 184; 77 ALJR 1739 (11 September 2003).
The Daily Telegraph had reported on a 1996 Federal Court decision of Justice Hill regarding a tax assessment of the interest component of a 1990 damages award by the NSW Supreme Court in the amount of $808,564.38 to Maree Lynette Whitaker in her action against eye surgeon Dr Christopher Rogers.
Appeals against the 1990 decision were dismissed by the NSW Court of Appeal and High Court of Australia. The High Court decision of Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175 CLR 479 (19 November 1992) is a well known decision regarding negligence arising from failure to warn of inherent but remote risks as opposed to negligence in the recommendation of the procedure or the manner in which the procedure is performed. Dr Rogers had performed surgery on Whitaker’s right eye, which was almost blind. The surgery should have restored her sight, but instead became blind in the left eye when she suffered sympathetic opthalmia. Whilst the risk was remote, Dr Rogers was held to be negligent in failing to warn Whitaker of the risk.
In reporting on the 1996 decision, the Daily Telegraph referred to Ms Whitaker as being blinded by Dr Roger’s negligence, imputing that he had been negligent in the performance of the surgery.
The High Court in Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd held that the Daily Telegraph’s reference to the decision of Rogers v Whitaker was not a fair report of court proceedings and had defamed Dr Rogers by adding to what was said by Justice HIll. The court held that the story was not entitled to the defence of qualified privilege.
1300 00 2088
WACO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 171
WACO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 171 (15 August 2003).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2003/171.html
The applicant was a citizen of Iran who applied for a protection visa. Evidence upon which he relied included two letters purporting to show an association with a reformist cleric named Ayatollah Sayed Mohammad Shirazi.
The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Indigenous Affairs not to grant the applicant’s visa, finding that it was not satisfied that he had a genuine fear of persecution and there was not a real chance that he would face persecution upon his return to Iran. The Tribunal concluded that several parts of the applicant’s evidence were implausible and that he was not a credible witness. Specifically, the Tribunal doubted the genuineness of the letters concerning the Ayatollah Shirazi.
It was common ground that the Tribunal did not at any time indicate to the applicant of its doubts about the letters, nor did it give the applicant an opportunity to put his case as to why they were genuine.
The applicant brought proceedings in the Federal Court seeking prerogative writs against the Tribunal’s decision. Those proceedings were dismissed by French J.
The Full Court of the Federal Court allowed an appeal, setting aside French J’s orders, issuing a writ of certiorari and remitting the matter back to the Tribunal. The Full Court held that procedural fairness imposes a duty on the Tribunal to ensure that an applicant is made aware of the case against him or her and given an opportunity to be heard in response to the issues to be decided.
Application by the Attorney General under Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act for a Guideline Judgment Concerning the Offence of High Range Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol Under Section 9(4) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (No. 3 of 2002) [2004] NSWCCA 303
News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45
News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45; 215 CLR 563; 200 ALR 157; 77 ALJR 1515 (13 August 2003).
1300 00 2088
Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38
ON 16 JULY 2003, the High Court of Australia delivered Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38; 215 CLR 1; 199 ALR 131; 77 ALJR 1312 (16 July 2003).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2003/38.html
A woman went to a doctor for a sterilisation procedure as she and her husband did not intend to have any more children. She told the doctor that she believed that her right fallopian tube had been removed when she was 15. The doctor performed a tubal ligation on the left fallopian tube and made no further investigation regarding the right tube. As it turned out, the right tube had not been removed and the woman later fell pregnant, unintentionally.
The woman and her husband sued the doctor and the State of Queensland (who ran the hospital) seeking damages for negligence on the grounds that the doctor failed to advise the woman of the risks of conceiving without specific investigation of the right fallopian tube.
The woman and her husband were awarded damages for the costs of raising and maintaining the healthy but unintended child, despite those damages being for pure economic loss (ie not arising from any actual injury).
The Civil Liability Acts have since prohibited awards of damages for the costs of rearing or maintaining a child or the parents’ loss of earnings whilst rearing or maintaining a child.
1300 00 2088
Wall’s Gifts and Tobacco Pty Limited v Warringah Mall Pty Limited [2003] NSWADT 161
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22 | 30 April 2003
On 30 April 2003, the High Court of Australia delivered Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118; 197 ALR 201; 77 ALJR 989 (30 April 2003).
“Appeal – Rehearing – Review of findings of fact based on trial judge’s assessment of credibility of witnesses – Whether findings inconsistent with incontrovertibly established facts – Power of appellate court to set aside findings.
Appeal – Issue not raised at trial – Where argued that expert report based on matters not proved or supported by the evidence – Whether re-examination of facts by appellate court appropriate.
Appeal – Rehearing – Substitution of judgment of appellate court for that of trial judge – Whether re-trial an appropriate remedy.”
The court affirmed the principles, developed over many previous cases, to be applied by appellant courts when considering whether or not to overturn the findings of credit made by a trial judge.
An appellate court must be satisfied that the findings are “glaringly improbable” or “contrary to compelling inferences”; or that the judge has “failed to use” or “palpably misused” his or her advantage or acted on facts which were inconsistent with the evidence or were glaringly improbable..”
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2003/22.html
1300 00 2088
Fitness First Australia PL v Port Phillip CC [2003] VCAT 960
Fitness First Australia PL v Port Phillip CC [2003] VCAT 960 (30 April 2003)
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Malaysia Airline System BHD (New Zealand) Limited v Malone [2013] NZEmpC 66
Malaysia Airline System BHD (New Zealand) Limited v Malone Ac33/03 [2003] NZEmpC 66; [2003] 1 ERNZ 494 (28 April 2003).
http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZEmpC/2003/66.html
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 