New South Wales Attorney General today announced that District Court Judge Helen Wilson SC has been appointed to the Supreme Court of NSW.
1300 00 2088
Tag Archives: Mosman Lawyers
Mosman Lawyers
David Jones Ltd v Willis [1934] HCA 47 | 17 October 1934
ON 17 OCTOBER 1934, the High Court of Australia delivered David Jones Ltd v Willis [1934] HCA 47; (1934) 52 CLR 110 (17 October 1934).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1934/47.html
Per Rich J at 118-9:
“..whenever the description of the goods enters into the transaction so that the buyer must be taken to rely upon it to a substantial degree as well as upon the identity of the goods, it is a sale by description. Therefore, if the description is a matter that influenced the buyer and had a material bearing on the decision to buy, even if it was not the only matter that influenced the buyer, then the sale is one by description.”
Goods which only have one specific use are not of merchantable quality if they are not fit for their purpose.
1300 00 2088
Legal Services Council appointments
The following appointments have been made to the newly formed Legal Services Council:
- Michael Black (Chair), former Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia.
- Steven Stevens, former president of the Law Institute of Victoria.
- Bret Walker SC, former president of the Law Council of Australia and the NSW Bar Association.
- Fiona Bennett, chair of the Victorian Legal Services Board.
- Kim Boettcher, lawyer.
The Legal Services Council will be responsible for the regulation of the legal profession in New South Wales and Victoria under the recently enacted Legal Profession Uniform Law.
Further appointments to the council are expected today.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41
The High Court of Australia today delivered Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41 (16 October 2014).
The High Court held that the dismissal of an employee by BHP Coal Pty Ltd was not contrary to s346(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) because the dismissal related to the worker’s conduct rather than his participation in industrial activity.
1300 00 2088
Kondis v State Transport Authority (formerly Victorian Railways Board) [1984] HCA 61 | 16 October 1984
ON 16 OCTOBER 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Kondis v State Transport Authority (formerly Victorian Railways Board) [1984] HCA 61; (1984) 154 CLR 672 (16 October 1984).
The High Court ruled that a special duty of care by an employer to an employee to provide a safe system of work is non-delegable.
The Victorian State Transit Authority engaged an independent contractor to dismantle a crane in a railway yard. Kondis injured his back when a metal pin fell from the crane. Kondis sued the State Transit Authority. The High Court held that the State Transit Authority, as employer, was liable for the harm caused by the independent contractor because their failure to adopt a safe system of work was a breach of the employer’s non-delegable duty of care.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Gray v Richards [2014] HCA 40
The High Court of Australia today delivered Gray v Richards [2014] HCA 40 (15 October 2014).
The High Court held that an intellectually impaired plaintiff was entitled to damages for the cost of managing the fund management component of her damages settlement compromise but not for the cost of managing the fund’s future predicted income.
1300 00 2088
The Pracitioner’s Guide to Civil Litigation
The Practitioner’s Guide to Civil Litigation (3rd Edition) is a handy resource for inexperienced users of the NSW court system.
For a free copy, visit http://www.lawsociety.com.au/cs/groups/public/documents/internetyounglawyers/026375.pdf
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Know your consumer rights
The ACCC website contains helpful information for consumers. Visit https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Bofinger v Kingsway Group Limited [2009] HCA 44 | 13 October 2009
ON 13 OCTOBER 2009, the High Court of Australia delivered Bofinger v Kingsway Group Limited [2009] HCA 44 (13 October 2009).
The High Court held that guarantors of a secured loan may recoup contributions they made to the repayment of the loan to a first mortgagee from the remaining surplus securities before the surplus is applied to repay any second or subsequent mortgagee with security over the same property, even if the guarantors have also guaranteed the second or subsequent loans. The guarantors were found the be subrogated to the first mortgagee. Upon repayment of the first loan, first mortgagee had a fiduciary obligation to in good conscience provide the guarantors with the surplus funds and remaining properties.
On the principle of unjust enrichment and how it applies to subrogation, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Kiefel and Bell JJ said at [85]:
“The appeal to this Court in Friend v Brooker [63], which concerned the equitable doctrine of contribution, was correctly conducted on the footing that the concept of unjust enrichment was not a principle supplying a sufficient premise for direct application in a particular case. The same is true of the equitable doctrine of subrogation. The oral submissions for the Solicitors correctly recognised this.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Free Small Claims Guide – Fair Work Ombudsman
The Fair Work Ombudsman has published a guide for employees taking action to recover entitlements of up to $20,000.
The guide helps employees resolve disputes quickly and effectively. It contains useful information and tips on how to have a favourable outcome at minimal cost. The guide can be obtained free of charge by visiting http://www.fairwork.gov.au/smallclaims.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/11.html
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 