ON 7 JULY 2014, Justice Crennan of the High Court of Australia granted an interim injunction restraining the Commonwealth from taking, removing, deporting or surrendering certain asylum seekers into the custody of the government of Sri Lanka.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2014/148.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
The High Court of Australia has reportedly granted an interim injunction ordering the Commonwealth to refrain from transferring certain asylum seekers to Sri Lanka, the country from which they were seeking asylum.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 7 JULY 2014, the Supreme Court of NSW delivered Curnow v Curnow [2014] NSWSC 896 (7 July 2014).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/896.html
The plaintiffs brought an application for a family provision order under the NSW Succession Act 2006. The deceased died intestate with two children of his own (the second and third plaintiffs), a widow (the defendant) and the widow’s daughter/his stepdaughter (the first plaintiff).
The first plaintiff applied on the basis that she was a member of the deceased’s household and was dependent on him; the second and third plaintiffs applied on the basis that they were the deceased’s children.
The plaintiffs were eligible persons entitled to orders for education, maintenance or advancement in life. The court determined that capital lump sums of differing amounts be paid to each of the plaintiffs to enable them to pay off immediate debts as well as an order for their costs.
1300 00 2088
ON 7 JULY 2014, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered AHB v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2014] NSWCA 216.
http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172537
The Court dismissed an appeal of an Appeal Panel upholding a decision of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to confirm the decision of the NSW Trustee and Guardian to sell sell the protected person’s family home.
Despite being unsuccessful, the protected person was not ordered to pay the NSW Trustee and Guardian’s costs.
1300 00 2088
ON 7 JULY 1989, the Federal Court of Australia delivered Re Henjo Investments Pty Limited; Henry Saade and Saade Developments Pty Limited v Collins Marrickville Pty Limited [1989] FCA 246; 89 ALR 539; (1989) 40 FCR 76 (7 July 1989).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1989/246.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 7 JULY 2014, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Hollingsworth v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 220.
http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172610
The court dismissed a Notice of Motion in which Kim Hollingsworth, representing herself, sought to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in respect of a District Court decision of Judge Neilson on an appeal from the Local Court. The decision related to ancillary orders made with respect to convictions under the NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 regarding horses owned by, or in the care of, Ms Hollingsworth.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 7 JULY 1977, the High Court of Australia delivered Heatley v Tasmanian Racing & Gaming Commission [1977] HCA 39; (1977)137 CLR 487 (7 July 1977).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1977/39.html
Heatley had been warned off racecourses in Tasmania without any notice by the Commission of it’s intention to do so. The court held that the Commission was bound by the rules of natural justice to give such notice (unless there was an emergency) and that Heatley should have had the opportunity to make representations before the Commission made it’s decision.
The court found that Heatley, as a member of the public, had a legitimate expectation of being admitted to the racecourse and that for the rules of natural justice to apply, the applicant only needed to have a legitimate expectation rather than a right or interest.
1300 00 2088
ON 6 JULY 2010, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Sydney Ferries v Morton [2010] NSWCA 156 (6 July 2010).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2010/156.html
1300 00 2088
Lawyers in NSW are banned from advertising personal injury services.
According to the NSW Law Society, the use of the following words is banned in lawyers’ advertising:
The relevant provisions which prohibit such advertising are contained in clauses 23 to 40 of the Legal Profession Regulation 2005 and clauses 74 to 80 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2003.
Clause 24 of the Legal Profession Regulation 2005 provides:
24 Restriction on advertising personal injury services
(1) A barrister or solicitor must not publish or cause or permit to be published an advertisement that promotes the availability or use of a barrister or solicitor to provide legal services if the advertisement includes any reference to or depiction of any of the following:
(a) personal injury,
(b) any circumstance in which personal injury might occur, or any activity, event or circumstance that suggests or could suggest the possibility of personal injury, or any connection to or association with personal injury or a cause of personal injury,
(c) a
“personal injury legal service” (that is, any legal service that relates to recovery of money, or any entitlement to recover money, in respect of personal injury).
Maximum penalty: 200 penalty units.
(2) A contravention of this clause by a barrister or solicitor is declared to be professional misconduct.
Note : A contravention of clause 75 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2003 can also be a contravention of this clause.
(3) Evidence that a barrister or solicitor has been convicted of an offence under this clause or under clause 75 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2003 is sufficient evidence of a contravention of this clause by the barrister or solicitor for the purposes of any proceedings under Chapter 4 (Complaints and discipline) of the Act.
Clause 23 provides:
23 Definitions
In this Division:
“advertisement” means any communication of information (whether by means of writing, or any still or moving visual image or message or audible message, or any combination of them) that advertises or otherwise promotes a product or service, whether or not that is its purpose or only purpose and whether or not that is its effect or only effect.
“personal injury” includes pre-natal injury, impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition, and disease.
“publish” means:
(a) publish in a newspaper, magazine, journal, periodical, directory or other printed publication, or
(b) disseminate by means of the exhibition or broadcast of a photograph, slide, film, video recording, audio recording or other recording of images or sound, either as a public exhibition or broadcast or as an exhibition or broadcast to persons attending a place for the purpose of receiving professional advice, treatment or assistance, or
(c) broadcast by radio or television, or
(d) display on an internet website or otherwise publicly disseminate by means of the internet, or
(e) publicly exhibit in, on, over or under any building, vehicle or place or in the air in view of persons in or on any street or public place, or
(f) display on any document (including a business card or letterhead) gratuitously sent or gratuitously delivered to any person or thrown or left on any premises or on any vehicle, or
(g) display on any document provided to a person as a receipt or record in respect of a transaction or bet.
“solicitor” includes the following:
(a) a partnership of which a solicitor is a member (but only if the business of the partnership includes business of a kind ordinarily conducted by a solicitor),
(b) a solicitor corporation,
(c) an incorporated legal practice.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 5 JULY 1984, the Federal Court of Australia delivered Re Hunter Valley Developments Pty Limited; Anthony Neary Walker; Mende Brown v the Honourable Barry Cohen Minister of Home Affairs and Environment [1984] FCA 176; (1984) Admn 96-034 /; 3 FCR 344 (5 July 1984).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1984/176.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 