Tag Archives: LOWER NORTH SHORE

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, LAW FIRM

Ridgeway v R [1995] HCA 66 | 19 April 1995

ON THIS DAY in 1995, the High Court of Australia delivered Ridgeway v R [1995] HCA 66; (1995) 184 CLR 19 (19 April 1995).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/66.html

A conviction for drug importation was quashed after the High Court excluded certain evidence that was unlawfully obtained by the police in a controlled operation. However, the court did not go as far as stating that a defence of entrapment exists under Australian law if a person voluntarily and with the necessary intent commits an unlawful act induced by another.

The Commonwealth Parliament subsequently amended the Crimes Act to make controlled operations legal in order to protect such evidence from being ruled inadmissible.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Constitutional law, Family Law, LAW FIRM

Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9 | 17 April 1991

ON THIS DAY in 1991, the High Court of Australia delivered Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991).

Parts of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) allowing Judges of the court to make rules delegating judicial powers to registrars and non-judical officers were held to be valid and not in breach of the doctrine of separation of powers found in s71 and Chapters II and III of the Australian Constitution.

Family Court Judges may make rules and delegate their powers as long as they continue to bear the major responsibility for the exercise of judicial power.  The delegation must not be inconsistent with the obligation of a court to act judicially and that the decisions must be subject to review or appeal by a Judge.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Contract, Criminal Law, Equity, Evidence, LAW FIRM, Law reform, Legislation, Property Law, United Kingdom, Wills and Probate

Statute of Frauds 1677 | 16 April 1677

ON 16 APRIL 1677, the English Parliament enacted the Statute of Frauds 1677.

This Act required certain dealings with real property, sale of goods, estates, trusts and marriage be reduced to writing and signed in order to avoid fraud or perjury.

The provisions of the Act have since been incorporated into many pieces of legislation around the common law world.

 

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Constitutional law, Environmental Law, LAW FIRM, Legislation

Inc Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (“Fraser Island case”) [1976] HCA 20 | 14 April 1996

ON THIS DAY in 1976, the High Court of Australia delivered Murphyores Inc Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (“Fraser Island case”) [1976] HCA 20; (1976) 136 CLR 1 (14 April 1976).

The court held that the Commonwealth could validly legislate over the environment through its trade and commerce powers under the Constitution.  As a result, sand mining licensed by the Queensland Government was prohibited on the Fraser Island – the largest sand island in the world.

Fraser Island later became part of the Register of the National Estate, National Heritage List and the World Heritage List.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1976/20.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Civil procedure, Costs, LAW FIRM

Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14 | 13 April 1994

ON THIS DAY in 1994, the High Court of Australia delivered Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403; (1994) 120 ALR 385; (1994) 68 ALJR 374 (13 April 1994).

Costs recoverable from an unsuccessful party do not include time spent by a successful litigant who is not a lawyer.

Costs are recoverable under the indemnity principle: for money paid and liabilities incurred for professional legal services. No such costs are incurred when a non-lawyer represents themselves.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1994/14.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Constitutional law, Criminal Law, Landmark cases, LAW FIRM

Viro v R [1978] HCA 9 | 11 April 1978

ON THIS DAY in 1978, the High Court of Australia delivered Viro v R [1978] HCA 9; (1978) 141 CLR 88 (11 April 1978).

The High Court held that it is no longer bound by decisions of the Privy Council in the United Kingdom.  The court is “pre-eminently equipped to decide what is the law for Australia”.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1978/9.html

 

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Family Law, Landmark cases, LAW FIRM, Property disputes

Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21 | 10 April 1984

ON THIS DAY in 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21; (1984) 156 CLR 605 (10 April 1984).

Equality had long been the starting point when dividing matrimonial property on divorce.  The High Court in this case held that there is not to be a presumption of equality and that each case is to be determined upon a consideration of it’s particular circumstances.

Section 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) requires consideration of the financial contributions, non-financial contributions and parental and/or homemaker services.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Damages, Duty of Care, Landmark cases, LAW FIRM, Law reform, Negligence, Professional negligence, Wills and Probate

Hawkins v Clayton [1988] HCA 15 | 8 April 1988

ON 8 APRIL 1988, the High Court of Australia delivered Hawkins v Clayton [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539 (8 April 1988).

A firm of solicitors was held to be negligent by failing to take reasonable steps to locate an executor (a non-client) following the death of a testatrix (a client whose will they prepared and retained for safe keeping) for some six years after the testatrix’s death.  The solicitors were held to be liable to pay damages for the loss suffered by the executor (who was also a residuary beneficiary) in not being able to manage the estate during the period of delay.

The majority (Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ) held that the solicitors owed a tortious duty of care to the executor and that the action was not statute-barred.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1988/15.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, Insurance Law, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Personal Injury, Uncategorized

Miller v Miller [2011] HCA 9 | 7 April 2011

ON THIS DAY in 2011, the High Court of Australia delivered Miller v Miller [2011] HCA 9 (7 April 2011).

A joint illegal enterprise (eg joyride) negates a duty of care (driver to passenger) thereby creating a defence of illegality on the part of the driver/insurer: see Gala v Preston [1991] HCA 18. However, in Miller v Miller the High Court held that the plaintiff (injured passenger) was owed a duty of care because she withdrew from the enterprise by asking to be let out of the car and there were no reasonable steps available to her to prevent the continuation of the offence.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/9.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Damages, Injunctions, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Neighbourhood disputes, Nuisance

Miller v Jackson [1977] EWCA Civ 6 | 6 April 1977

ON THIS DAY in 1977, the England and Wales Court of Appeal delivered Miller v Jackson [1977] EWCA Civ 6 (06 April 1977).  A cricket club was sued in negligence and nuisance caused by cricket balls landing on a neighbour’s property.  Whilst ordering damages, the court refused to grant an injunction to cease the action or further action as the game of cricket itself was considered to be in the public interest.

Lord Denning began with the following:

“In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last seventy years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club-house for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practice while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a Judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there anymore, lie has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket. But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that, when a batsman hits a six, the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at weekends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the Judge to stop the cricket being played. And the Judge, I am sorry to say, feels that the cricket must be stopped: with the consequences, I suppose, that the Lintz cricket-club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.”

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1977/6.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088