Tag Archives: LOWER NORTH SHORE

2006 | WorkChoices case

ON 14 NOVEMBER 2006, the High Court of Australia delivered New South Wales v Commonwealth [2006] HCA 52; 81 ALJR 34; 231 ALR 1 (14 November 2006).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2006/52.html

Lawyer
Peter O’Grady
BA, LLB, Grad Cert Leg Prac, Acc Spec Lawyer

Magill v Magill [2006] HCA 2006

ON 9 NOVEMBER 2006, the High Court of Australia delivered Magill v Magill [2006] HCA 51; (2006) 231 ALR 277; (2006) 81 ALJR 254 (9 November 2006).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2006/51.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Smith v Grant [2006] NSWCA 244

ON 5 SEPTEMBER 2006, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Smith v Grant [2006] NSWCA 244 (5 September 2006).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2006/244.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

27 Almora Street, Mosman NSW 2088

R J Pearce & Associates Pty Limited v Mosman Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 554 (4 September 2006).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2006/554.html

 

R J Pearce & Associates Pty Limited v Mosman Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 554

R J Pearce & Associates Pty Limited v Mosman Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 554 (4 September 2006).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2006/554.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

5 Pearl Bay Avenue, Mosman NSW 2088

Janian v Mosman Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 549 (31 August 2006).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2006/549.html

Janian v Mosman Municipal Council

Janian v Mosman Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 549 (31 August 2006).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2006/549.html

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.

Lawyers 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.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Linney v Mosman Municipal Council

Linney v Mosman Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 525 (14 August 2006).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2006/525.html