Tag Archives: LOWER NORTH SHORE

Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46 | 2 August 1984

ON 2 AUGUST 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606 (2 August 1984).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/46.html

The case sets out the principle of due proportionality to be imposed by Australian courts when sentencing criminal offenders.

Whilst co-offenders do not have to receive the same sentence for the same offence, any discrepancy must not give the sense or appearance of their being an injustice done to the offender with the heavier sentence.

At 623, Dawson J (with whom WIlson J agreed) said:

“There is no rule of law which requires co-offenders to be given the same sentence for the same offence even if no distinction can be drawn between them. Obviously where the circumstances of each offender or his involvement in the offence are different then different sentences may be called for but justice should be even-handed and it has come to be recognised both here and in England that any difference between the sentences imposed upon co-offenders for the same offence ought not to be such as to give rise to a justifiable sense of a grievance on the part of the offender with the heavier sentence or to give the appearance that justice has not been done.”

The principle is an application of the fundamental principle of equality of justice. At 610, Mason J observed:

“Just as consistency in punishment — a reflection of the notion of equal justice — is a fundamental element in any rational and fair system of criminal justice, so inconsistency in punishment, because it is regarded as a badge of unfairness and unequal treatment under the law, is calculated to lead to an erosion of public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice. It is for this reason that the avoidance and elimination of unjustifiable discrepancy in sentencing is a matter of abiding importance to the administration of justice and to the community.”

The parity principle only applies to co-offenders: per Gibbs CJ at 609, Mason J at 611 and Brennan J at 617-618.

Disparity may be an indicator of appelable error: per Brennan J at 617-618.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

21 Bungan Street Pty Limited v Warringah Council

ON 1 AUGUST 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered 21 Bungan Street Pty Limited v Warringah Council [2014] NSWLEC 1158.

The court upheld an appeal by a developer against a decision of Warringah Council regarding a proposed development at 11-13 Bernie Avenue, Forestville.

The court approved the development, which will include 11 units and 24 basement car spaces on the site where two detached dwelling houses will be demolished.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

NCAT Online Dispute Resolution

ON 1 AUGUST 2014, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal commenced the pilot of Online Dispute Resolution, a web based tool allowing parties to selected small consumer claims to negotiate online without attending the Tribunal.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

University of NSW v Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26 | 1 August 1975

ON 1 AUGUST 1975, the High Court of Australia delivered University of NSW v Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26; (1975) 133 CLR 1 (1 August 1975).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1975/26.html

The University of NSW was declared to have authorized an infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright by providing coin operated photocopy machines without taking proper measures to prevent an infringement.

Subsequent to this decision, the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) was amended to the effect that libraries are not to be taken as authorizing copyright infringement if a notice setting out the relevant provisions of the Act is displayed near the photocopy machine.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) | 1 August 1984

ON 1 AUGUST 1984, the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 commenced.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1984209/

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

West v Government Insurance Office of NSW [1981] HCA 38 | 31 July 1981

ON 31 JULY 1981, the High Court of Australia delivered West v Government Insurance Office of NSW [1981] HCA 38; (1981) 148 CLR 62 (31 July 1981).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1981/38.html

A deficiency in evidence brought about by a failure to call a witness does not allow for an inference to be drawn to remedy the deficiency by filling the gap in the evidence.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40 | 31 July 1986

ON 31 JULY 1986, the High Court of Australia delivered Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24 (31 July 1986).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1986/40.html

An administrative decision maker’s failure to take into account relevant considerations is an abuse of discretion creating a jurisdictional error that may be remedied by judicial review. The consideration must be relevant and one that the decision maker was bound to take into account.

Determining whether or not a decision maker was bound to take into account a consideration is to be through construction of the statute that confers the decision maker’s power. Implications may arise from the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statute.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Insolvency, Bankruptcy and Winding Up

Insolvency is the inability to pay one’s debts when they fall due.

Insolvent individuals are bankrupted under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) whereas insolvent companies are wound up under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

BANKRUPTCY

The Bankruptcy Act 1966 applies to all adult individuals or businesses connected with Australia either through their residence or business.

Bankruptcy may be voluntary of involuntary. An application may be made as long as there is a probable debt.

Bankruptcy applications are made (ie filed) with the Insolvency and Trustee Service, which is the office of the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy who delegates its functions to the Official Receivers and/or registered private trustees.

Voluntary and involuntary bankruptcy

Voluntary bankruptcy is sought by completing and filing a Debtor’s Petition and Statement of Affairs. The Official Receiver may reject such an application if the debtor:

  • would be able to pay their debts in a reasonable time and that the debtor is unwilling to pay the debts and have previously become bankrupt by debtor’s position three or more times or once in the last 5 years.
  • does not reside or carry on business in Australia.

Involuntary bankruptcy is sought by an unpaid creditor or creditors presenting a Creditor’s Petition to the Federal Circuit Court or Federal Court of Australia, subject to their being a judgment and no response to a bankruptcy notice after 21 days since service.

Declaration of bankruptcy

A person is declared bankrupt when a Debtor’s Position is order accepted or a sequestration order is made on a Creditor’s Position.

A declaration of bankruptcy results in the person’s divisible property being put under the control of the Official Trustee or, if requested by the creditor, a private trustee. The divisible property is used to pay the debts.

Divisible property

Divisible property includes: the bankrupt’s interest in land, cash, jewellery, stocks, money owed and most other valuable property.

Divisible property includes property owned as tenants in common with another person, such as a spouse. Property owned separately by a spouse is not included.

If the bankrupt owns property jointly with another person, such as a spouse or business partner, the trustee becomes registered as the tenant-in-common of the bankrupt’s interest in the property.

The trustee cannot take certain property, including:

  • ordinary clothing.
  • household goods.
  • tools of trade up to $3,500.
  • certain insurance/assurance/endowment or annuities, or their proceeds.
  • amounts paid under rural assistance agreements.
  • net equity in motor vehicles up to $7,050.
  • monies received by the bankrupt for damages for personal injury or death, defamation, or property purchased with those monies.
  • superannuation policies, proceeds, lump sums or property purchased with those monies, except for “out of character payments” designed to avoid creditors.

The trustee may also reclaim property given away or sold to others in the 5 years before bankruptcy for less than full value or at any other time if the intention was to defeat creditors.

Income

A bankrupt must also make payments to the trustee out of 50 percent of their income if it exceeds a certain amount.

Restrictions on credit, travel and court proceedings

A bankrupt may not obtain credit for goods or services over $5,040 without advising the provider that they are bankrupt.

The trustee may impose restrictions on the bankrupt’s overseas travel.

A bankrupt may continue or start proceedings relating to personal injury, family death, wrongs to the person (such as defamation) and employment (such as wrongful dismissal or harassment). Other proceedings commenced cannot continue without the approval of the trustee and creditors.

Automatic discharge

A bankrupt is discharged automatically from bankruptcy after three years after filing their Statement of Affairs, unless the trustee objects and seeks an extension of 5 or 8 years.

A bankrupt is released from all outstanding or provable debts after discharge. However, a bankrupt cannot be released from certain debts relating to child support, bonds, fines, proceeds of crime, fraud debts, unliquidated claims, post-bankruptcy debts and student loans and HECS charges.

Annulment

A bankruptcy is annulled when the creditor and trustees have been paid in full or if the creditors accept an offer for less, made through the trustee.

Alternatives to bankruptcy

An insolvent person may avoid bankruptcy if they can satisfy their creditors that they can work their way out of insolvency. Arrangements to effect this include :

  • informal arrangements
  • Part IX debt agreements for small debts, administered by a trustee
  • Part X personal insolvency agreements, administered by a trustee

WINDING UP

The Corporations Act 2001 applies to companies registered in Australia.

Winding up is the process of bringing a company to an end. It is sometimes referred to as liquidation or dissolution. Liquidation specifically means the conversion of assets and inventory into cash to pay the debts whereas dissolution means the ending of the business.

Both solvent and insolvent companies may be wound up. Insolvent companies are wound up when they cannot pay their debts whereas solvent companies are wound up when they no longer serve any useful purpose.

Winding up is not to be confused with receivership. Receivership involves the appointment by a secured creditor of a receiver to collect and sell charged assets to pay the outstanding debt owed to the secured creditor.

Voluntary and involuntary winding up

An insolvent company may be wound up voluntarily or involuntarily.

Voluntary winding up is done by way of resolutions of the shareholders and/or creditors. A company goes into voluntary administration by appointing an external administrator to take control of the company to investigate the affairs of the company and report to the creditors as to whether or not the company be wound up, enter into a scheme of arrangement with the creditors or control be returned to the directors.

Involuntary winding up, or court liquidation, is when the court finds a company to be insolvent and orders that it be wound up, usually following a failure to comply with a Statutory Demand for monies owing.

Statutory Demands are a request by a creditor to a company to pay to their satisfaction an outstanding debt within 21 days. Failure to pay the debt within 21 days results in a presumption that the company is insolvent.

Once an application for winding up has been made, court permission is needed for voluntarily winding up or alteration of the shareholding and membership of the company.

Appointment of liquidator

Once an order for winding up is made, the court (Federal Court of Australia or Supreme Court of a State or Territory) appoints a liquidator.

The liquidator takes control of the company and attends a number of matters including:

  • investigation the company’s affairs and report to ASIC.
  • collection, protect and realise the unencumbered assets and inventory.
  • recovery and sale of property transferred improperly when the company was insolvent.
  • stay of proceedings against the company.
  • implementation of a claims process.
  • implementation of an order of priority for distribution.
  • apply for deregistration after liquidation is completed.

Priority

Priority of payment is to be given to the liquidators (for their costs and expenses), secured creditors, employee entitlements, other unsecured creditors and then shareholders.

Deregistration

At the completion of the liquidation, the liquidator applies for deregistration of the company.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39 | 30 July 1986

ON 30 JULY 1986, the High Court of Australia delivered Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39; (1986) 161 CLR 342 (30 July 1986).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1986/39.html

During a luncheon adjournment, a Family Court counsellor went to the chambers of a judge and had a private conversation in which she expressed certain things including a recommendation that separate representation being granted to the child. Her views were adverse to the husband. Counsel for the parties were then invited to the judges chambers where they were introduced to the counsellor and informed of her recommendations. Comments made by the judge indicated that there had been a private conversation between the counsellor and the judge. After lunch, counsel for the wife made an application seeking appointment of separate representation for the child. The husband asked for the judge to disqualify himself.

The High Court held that it was reasonable for the husband to apprehend that the judge might not bring and impartial or unprejudiced mind to the matter having had a private conversation with the counsellor who had formed an adverse view of him. On that basis, the court made absolute the order nisi for a writ of prohibition directing that the judge be prohibited from proceeding further with the matter.

The case is notable for Justice Mason’s warning that judicial officers are required to discharge their obligations unless disqualified to do so. They must not readily accept suggestions of appearance of bias, otherwise parties might be encouraged to seek their disqualification, without justification, for strategic reasons.

Per Mason J at 352:

“There may be many situations in which previous decisions of a judicial officer on issues of fact and law may generate an expectation that he is likely to decide issues in a particular case adversely to one of the parties. But this does not mean either that he will approach the issues in that case otherwise than with an impartial and unprejudiced mind in the sense in which that expression is used in the authorities or that his previous decisions provide an acceptable basis for inferring that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will approach the issues in this way.

Although it is important that justice must be seen to be done, it is equally important that judicial officers discharge their duty to sit and do not, by acceding too readily to suggestions of appearance of bias, encourage parties to believe that by seeking the disqualification of a judge, they will have their case tried by someone thought to be more likely to decide the case in their favour.”

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Saaghy v Bunnings Group Ltd [2014] VCAT 951

Saaghy v Bunnings Group Ltd (Civil Claims) [2014] VCAT 951 (29 July 2014)

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088