Tag Archives: Mosman Lawyers

Mosman Lawyers

The 24th Annual Credit Law Conference

The 24th Annual Credit Law Conference will be held this year on 1-3 October at the Sheraton Mirage & Spa at the Gold Coast.

The annual conference attracts representatives from major banks and lenders, regulatory bodies and the legal profession. Discussions will consider credit law regulatory perspectives, policy initiatives, and best practice compliance. This year there will  be particular discussions about recent privacy reforms concerning credit reporting.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Women in Law Awards

The Lawyers Weekly Women in Law Awards will be held this year on 17 October 2014 at the Langham Hotel in Melbourne.

This year’s judges will be Caroline Kenny QC, Stephen Minn (Australian Chairman of King Wood & Mallesons) and Philippa Stone (Partner at Herbert Smith Freehills).

Nominations close on 16 September.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Idoport Pty Limited and Anor v National Australia Bank Limited [2001] NSWSC 744 | 13 September 2001

ON 13 SEPTEMBER 2001, the Supreme Court of NSW delivered Idoport Pty Limited and Anor v National Australia Bank Limited and 8 Ors; Idoport Pty Limited and Market Holdings Pty Limited v Donald Robert Argus; Idoport Pty Limited “JMG” v National Australia Bank Limited [35] [2001] NSWSC 744 (13 September 2001).

In a class action proceedings against the National Australia Bank, the Supreme Court of NSW made an order for security for costs against the plaintiff.

The principles relevant to ordering the provision for security for costs against a plaintiff include:

  • The court has the power to order security for costs against plaintiffs who are natural persons.
  • The court’s discretion in making the order is broad.
  • The purpose is to protect the court’s ability to properly exercise its jurisdiction to order costs to the successful party.
  • The court needs to seek a balance between protecting the defendant and avoiding injustice to an impecunious plaintiff by shutting him or her out of the proceedings or otherwise prejudicing him or her in the proceedings.
  • The inability of the plaintiff to satisfy a costs order weights heavily in the exercise of the court’s discretion.
  • A court must be satisfied that a plaintiff is unable (rather than unwilling) to provide security for costs before it can regard the proceedings to be stultified by the order.
  • The defendant may seek security for the costs incurred before proceedings commences, provided that they were incurred “in reasonable anticipation of litigation.”
  • Costs are to be calculated by reference to a clear methodology rather than mathematical certainty.
  • Courts are to factor into their estimate a discount for the prospect that the proceedings will not proceed to a full hearing and settle at mediation.

In these particular proceedings, the provision for security for costs was ordered in the sum of $6,212,962.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Amendment No 3)

Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Amendment No 3)

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions [1996] HCA 24 | 12 September 1996

ON 12 SEPTEMBER 1996, the High Court of Australia delivered Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [1996] HCA 24; (1996) 189 CLR 51 (12 September 1996).

The High Court established the principle that a State Parliament may not legislate to confer a power on a State Court that is inconsistent or repugnant to the State Court’s Chapter III judicial power as a court exercising federal jurisdiction under the Constitution.

The High Court held that the Community Protection Act 1994 (NSW) was incompatible with Chapter III as it required the NSW Supreme Court to order the continued imprisonment of a person convicted of manslaughter after the expiration of his sentence.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Newey v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] NSWCA 319

Newey v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] NSWCA 319 (11 September 2014).

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Ashby v Slipper [2014] FCA 973

Ashby v Slipper [2014] FCA 973 (11 September 2014).

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52 | 11 September 2003

ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2003, the High Court of Australia delivered Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52; 216 CLR 327; 201 ALR 184; 77 ALJR 1739 (11 September 2003).

The Daily Telegraph had reported on a 1996 Federal Court decision of Justice Hill regarding a tax assessment of the interest component of a 1990 damages award by the NSW Supreme Court in the amount of $808,564.38 to Maree Lynette Whitaker in her action against eye surgeon Dr Christopher Rogers.

Appeals against the 1990 decision were dismissed by the NSW Court of Appeal and High Court of Australia. The High Court decision of Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175 CLR 479 (19 November 1992) is a well known decision regarding negligence arising from failure to warn of inherent but remote risks as opposed to negligence in the recommendation of the procedure or the manner in which the procedure is performed. Dr Rogers had performed surgery on Whitaker’s right eye, which was almost blind. The surgery should have restored her sight, but instead became blind in the left eye when she suffered sympathetic opthalmia. Whilst the risk was remote, Dr Rogers was held to be negligent in failing to warn Whitaker of the risk.

In reporting on the 1996 decision, the Daily Telegraph referred to Ms Whitaker as being blinded by Dr Roger’s negligence, imputing that he had been negligent in the performance of the surgery.

The High Court in Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd held that the Daily Telegraph’s reference to the decision of Rogers v Whitaker was not a fair report of court proceedings and had defamed Dr Rogers by adding to what was said by Justice HIll. The court held that the story was not entitled to the defence of qualified privilege.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Mosman Public Notices – 11 September 2014

Mosman Now – 11 September 2014

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Plaintiff S4-2014 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 34

ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2014, the High Court of Australia delivered Plaintiff S4-2014 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 34 (11 September 2014).

The plaintiff arrived at Christmas Island without a visa. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection issued the plaintiff with a temporary humanitarian concern visa and a temporary safe haven visa. The effect of being issued with the temporary visas was to prevent the plaintiff from making an application for a protection visa until the Minister enquired as to whether or not the plaintiff would be eligible to make a valid application for a permanent protection visa.

The plaintiff was kept in detention for more than two years whilst the Minister’s department enquired as to whether the plaintiff would be eligible to make a valid application for a protection visa.

The High Court quashed the Minister’s decision, holding that the grant of the temporary visas in such a manner was invalid.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088