Mosman Lawyers
ON 15 JULY 1998, the Family Court of Australia delivered DJM and JLM [1998] FamCA 97 (15 July 1998).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/1998/97.html
The court considered a number of issues including the determination of the pool of assets and how to treat a post separation change of employment resulting in a voluntary reduction of earnings less than one’s earning capacity.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 14 JULY 1998, the Federal Court of Australia delivered White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm) [1998] FCA 806 (14 July 1998).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1998/806.html
Flower & Hart (a firm of lawyers) was ordered to pay the legal costs of White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd who had been sued by Flower & Hart’s client, Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (in liquidation).
Proceedings alleging misleading and deceptive conduct, fraud and negligence had been brought by Caboolture Park for the ulterior purpose of delaying payment of monies due under a building contract. The solicitor for Caboolture Park, Michael Meadows, held the view that the proceedings did not have any prospects or any substantial prospects of success but nevertheless advised his client to proceed in order to secure a bargaining position against White Industries.
Goldberg held that:
1300 00 2088
Re JJT; Ex parte Victoria Legal Aid [1998] HCA 44; (1998) 195 CLR 184; (1998) 155 ALR 251; (1998) 72 ALJR 1141 (25 June 1998).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1998/44.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 16 JUNE 1998, the High Court of Australia delivered Gipp v R [1998] HCA 21; 194 CLR 106; 155 ALR 15; 72 ALJR 1012 (16 June 1998).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/21.html
1300 00 2088
Costa Vraca Pty Ltd v Berrigan Weed & Pest Control Pty Ltd & Anor [1998] FCA 693 (15 June 1998).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/1998/693.html
1300 00 2088
Ganter and Grimshaw [1998] FamCA 52 (12 May 1998).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/1998/52.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
W and T [1998] FamCA 49 (7 May 1998).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/family_ct/1998/49.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 1998, the High Court of Australia delivered Patrick Stevedores v MUA [1998] HCA 30; 195 CLR 1; 72 ALJR 873; 79 IR 339; 153 ALR 643 (4 May 1998).
The High Court rejected Patrick’s appeal to overturn orders of the Federal Court arising from the waterfront dispute of Easter 1998.
Patrick had locked out its national workforce of about 1400 permanent and 300 part time staff and sought to terminate them on the grounds that their services were no longer required as they were employed by four labour hire companies (restructured in September 1997) that had ceased trading and had been placed under administration whilst Patrick had been involved in the organisation of a non-unionised alternative.
The MUA obtained Federal Court interim injunctions to maintain the pre-Easter status quo and stop the terminations. The effect of the injunctions was to require the specific performance of contracts of service, a remedy which the courts generally do not favour. However, the MUA satisfied the Federal Court that the balance of convenience favoured the relief sought chiefly through undertakings that the workers would refrain from industrial action and not hold the administrators personally liable for their wages and other benefits.
The High Court upheld the Federal Court orders and granted further orders to allow the administrators to properly exercise their functions.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 28 APRIL 1998, the High Court of Australia delivered Project Blue Sky v ABA [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355; 153 ALR 490; 72 ALJR 841 (28 April 1998).
“Statutes – Construction – Reconciliation of conflicting provisions – Intention of legislature – Presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals – Leading and subordinate provisions – Grammatical meaning and legal meaning.
Statutes – Construction – Acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power – Whether invalid – Mandatory and directory provisions – Purpose-based test.
Media law – Television – Regulation of programming – Australian Broadcasting Authority – Standard prescribing Australian content requirements – Whether inconsistent with legislative requirement that functions be performed consistently with Australia’s international obligations.
Media law – Television – Regulation of programming – Australian Broadcasting Authority – Power to make standards that “relate to … the Australian content of programs” – Whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.
Trade law – Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement.”
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/28.html
Statutory construction is to start with an examination of the provision to be construed. When determining the validity of an act done in breach of a statutory provision, the test is “to ask whether it was a purpose of the legislation that an act done in breach of the provision should be invalid”, rather than to “use the elusive distinction between mandatory and directive requirements”. The purpose is determined by consideration of “the language of the relevant provision and the scope and object of the whole statute.”
1300 00 2088
Seaton and Ors v Mosman Municipal Council and The Bathers Pavilion Pty Ltd Matter No Ca 40709/97 [1998] NSWSC 75 (27 March 1998).
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 