De L v Director-General Department of Community Services (NSW) [1996] HCA 9; (1996) 136 ALR 201; (1996) 70 ALJR 532; (1996) FLC 92-678 (4 April 1996).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1996/9.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Mosman Lawyers
De L v Director-General Department of Community Services (NSW) [1996] HCA 9; (1996) 136 ALR 201; (1996) 70 ALJR 532; (1996) FLC 92-678 (4 April 1996).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1996/9.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Heard and De Laine [1996] FamCA 31 (29 March 1996).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/1996/31.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
DONALD SEATON v. MOSMAN COUNCIL No. 40188 of 1995 [1996] NSWLEC 94 (28 March 1996).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/1996/94.html
Evangelos Krambousanos and Angela Krambousanos v Jedda Investments Pty Ltd, A D Holmes, P v Manser, C A Cunningham and D J Morris Trading As Simmons Wolfhagen [1996] FCA 1314 (14 March 1996).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1996/1314.html
legalhelpdeskmosman.com.au
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 1996, the Commonwealth Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 commenced.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/haosa1995370
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 6 DECEMBER 1995, the High Court of Australia delivered Reid v Howard [1995] HCA 40; (1995) 184 CLR 1 (6 December 1995).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/40.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 14 NOVEMBER 1995, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Polycarpou v Australian Wire Industries Pty Ltd [1995] NSWSC 158 (14 November 1995).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/1995/158.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 27 OCTOBER 1995, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered CES and Anor v Superclinics (Australia) Pty Ltd and Ors (1995) 38 NSWLR 47.
The plaintiff (CES) sought civil damages for the loss of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy arising from the defendants’ alleged breach of duty of care by failing to detect a pregnancy . Newman J of the Supreme Court of NSW found in favour of the defendants, not satisfied that the evidence justified a finding that termination of pregnancy would have been legal in accordance with Levine J’s test in R v Wald.
The NSW Court of Appeal upheld an appeal, ordering a new trial. The Court of Appeal held that the evidence did not justify a finding than a termination of pregnancy would have been illegal.
The Wald test, per Levine DCJ (at 29) provides:
“It may be that an honest belief be held that the woman’s mental health was in serious danger as at the very time when she was interviewed by a doctor, or that her mental health, although not then in serious danger, could reasonably be expected to be seriously endangered at some time during the currency of the pregnancy if uninterrupted. In either case such a conscientious belief on reasonable grounds would have to be negatived before an offence under s33 of the Act could be proved.”
Kirby P in CES and Anor v Superclinics (Australia) Pty Ltd and Ors said that the Wald test “allows a consideration of the economic demands on the pregnant woman and the social circumstances affecting her health when considering the necessity and proportionality of a termination.”
Kirby P said that there is “no logical basis for limiting the honest’ and reasonable expectation of such a danger to the mother’s psychological health to the period of the currency of the pregnancy alone.”
1300 00 2088
ON 24 OCTOBER 1995, the High Court of Australia delivered Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 (24 October 1995)
At 179:
“If … an administrative tribunal falls into an error of law which causes it to identify a wrong issue, to ask itself a wrong question, to ignore relevant material, to rely on irrelevant material or, at least in some circumstances, to make an erroneous finding or to reach a mistaken conclusion, and the tribunal’s exercise or purported exercise of power is thereby affected, it exceeds its authority or powers. Such an error of law is jurisdictional error which will invalidate any order or decision of the tribunal which reflects it.”
At 180:
“a failure by an inferior court to take into account some matter which it was, as a matter of law, required to take into account in determining a question within jurisdiction or reliance by such a court upon some irrelevant matter upon which it was, as a matter of law, not entitled to rely in determining such a question will not ordinarily involve jurisdictional error”.
At 177:
A court falls into jurisdictional error “if it mistakenly asserts or denies the existence of jurisdiction or if it misapprehends or disregards the nature or limits of its functions or powers in a case where it correctly recognises that jurisdiction does exist”.
At 177:
Jurisdictional error “is at its most obvious where the inferior court purports to act wholly or partly outside the general area of its jurisdiction in the sense of entertaining a matter or making a decision or order of a kind which wholly or partly lies outside the theoretical limits of its functions and powers”.
At 177-8
Examples of a court acting beyond its jurisdiction by entertaining a matter outside the limits of the court’s functions include:
1300 00 2088
Kizbeau Pty Ltd v W G & B Pty Ltd & McLean [1995] HCA 4; (1995) 69 ALJR 787; (1995) 131 ALR 363; (1995) 184 CLR 281 (11 October 1995).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/4.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088