Tag Archives: Mosman Lawyers

Mosman Lawyers

Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 44 | 8 September 1988

ON 8 SEPTEMBER 1988, the High Court of Australia delivered Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd [1988] HCA 44; (1988) 165 CLR 107 (8 September 1988).

The proprietor of a building site (Blue Circle Cement) took out an insurance policy with Trident General Insurance which promised to indemnify the assured who it defined as Blue Circle Cement but also “all its subsidiary, associated and related Companies, all Contractors and Sub-Contractors and/or Suppliers”.

A contractor (McNeice) who incurred a legal liability (a judgment in favour of an injured worker) was held to be covered although not a party to the policy.

A non-party beneficiary under an insurance policy has a right at common law for benefits promised under the policy. The decision creates an exception to the privity of contract rule.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

ICAC v Cornwall (1993) 38 NSWLR 207 | 8 September 1993

ON 8 SEPTEMBER 1993, the Supreme Court of NSW delivered Independent Commission Against Corruption v Cornwall (1993) 38 NSWLR 207.

Journalist Deborah Cornwall was found guilty of contempt for not disclosing the names of unnamed police officers who told her that underworld figure Arthur “Neddy” Smith had been a police informer.

Ms Cornwall received a two month suspended sentence and 90 hours of community service.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Application by the Attorney General under Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act for a Guideline Judgment Concerning the Offence of High Range Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol Under Section 9(4) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (No. 3 of 2002) [2004] NSWCCA 303 | 8 September 2004

ON 8 SEPTEMBER 2004, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal delivered Application by the Attorney General under Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act for a Guideline Judgment Concerning the Offence of High Range Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol Under Section 9(4) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (No. 3 of 2002) [2004] NSWCCA 303.

The NSW Attorney General made an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal seeking a guideline judgment for sentencing of offenders convicted of high range drink driving. The Attorney General held a concern that too many offenders were receiving leniency by way of s10 orders dismissing or conditionally discharging the offence without a conviction being recorded.

The guideline identifies:

  • Circumstances in which s10 orders will be appropriate or inappropriate.
  • An “ordinary case” of high range drink driving (in which a s10 order will rarely be considered appropriate).
  • Factors that increase the moral culpability of an offender.
  • Appropriate penalties in circumstances of high moral culpability.

The actual guideline is as follows:

(1) An ordinary case of the offence of high range PCA is one where:
(i) the offender drove to avoid personal inconvenience or because the offender did not believe that he or she was sufficiently affected by alcohol;
(ii) the offender was detected by a random breath test;
(iii) the offender has prior good character;
(iv) the offender has nil, or a minor, traffic record;
(v) the offender’s licence was suspended on detection;
(vi) the offender pleaded guilty;
(vii) there is little or no risk of re-offending;
(viii) the offender would be significantly inconvenienced by loss of licence.

(2) In an ordinary case of an offence of high range PCA:
(i) an order under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act will rarely be appropriate;
(ii) a conviction cannot be avoided only because the offender has attended, or will attend, a driver’s education or awareness course;
(iii) the automatic disqualification period will be appropriate unless there is a good reason to reduce the period of disqualification:
(iv) a good reason under (iii) may include:
(a) the nature of the offender’s employment;
(b) the absence of any viable alternative transport;
(c) sickness or infirmity of the offender or another person.

(3) In an ordinary case of a second or subsequent high range PCA offence:
(i) an order under s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act will rarely be appropriate;
(ii) an order under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act would very rarely be appropriate;
(iii) where the prior offence was a high range PCA, any sentence of less severity than a community service order would generally be inappropriate.

(4) The moral culpability of a high range PCA offender is increased by:
(i) the degree of intoxication above 0.15;
(ii) erratic or aggressive driving;
(iii) a collision between the vehicle and any other object;
(iv) competitive driving or showing off;
(v) the length of the journey at which others are exposed to risk;
(vi) the number of persons actually put at risk by the driving.

(5) In a case where the moral culpability of a high range PCA offender is increased:
(i) an order under s 9 or s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Pro¬cedure) Act would very rarely be appropriate;
(ii) where a number of factors of aggravation are present to a significant degree, a sentence of any less severity than impris¬onment of some kind, including a suspended sentence, would generally be inappropriate.

(6) In a case where the moral culpability of the offender of a second or subsequent high range PCA offence is increased:
(i) a sentence of any less severity than imprisonment of some kind would generally be inappropriate;
(ii) where any number of aggravating factors are present to a significant degree or where the prior offence is a high range PCA offence, a sentence of less severity than full-time imprisonment would generally be inappropriate

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Imagine a day in the life of a High Court judge

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Commonwealth Bank Open Advice Review Program

Lawyers Weekly and Money Management report that a number of plaintiff law firms, including Slater and Gordon, are in discussions with the Commonwealth Bank to be engaged as independent customer advocates in its Open Advice Review Program.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Bulletpoints and Lawyers Weekly

Lawyers Weekly have announced that they have partnered with Bulletpoints, a free online service that helps lawyers find CPD/CLE/MCLE events from a wide range of providers.

Capacity Toolkit

THE NSW DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL & JUSTICE publishes the Capacity Toolkit, which is a guide to assessing one’s ability to make legal, medical, financial and personal decisions.

The ability to make their own decisions is known as “capacity”. If one is concerned of another’s capacity to make a decision for themselves, they must do a capacity assessment. Capacity assessments are often performed by family members, friends, carers, doctors, health care works, government workers, lawyers, bank managers or any person who provides services.

Capacity Assessment Principles are as follows:

  1. Start by assuming the person has capacity to make decisions.
  2. Capacity is decision specific. If one can’t make a decision about one thing they may still be able to make other decisions.
  3. Never assume a person lacks capacity because of appearances.
  4. Assess the person’s decision making capacity, not the decision they make.
  5. Respect a person’s privacy.
  6. Substitute-decision making is a last resort.

A person who is assessed as not being able to make a decision may need a “substitute decision maker”.

Disputes about capacity may be taken to the Guardianship Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) of Level 3, 2a Rowntree Street, Balmain NSW 2041, tel 1800463928.

Further information can be found at the Aged Care Rights Service and NSW Government Diversity Services.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Preventing Financial Abuse of People with Dementia

Alzheimer’s Australia has released Preventing Financial Abuse of People with Dementia (June 2014).

Recommendations include:

  • Establishment of a NSW Public Advocate to investigate reports of financial abuse.
  • Refer to the NSW Law Reform Commission an examination of a register of Enduring Power of Attorneys; an investigation of how to appropriately respond to financial abuse of people with dementia; and an investigation of the adequacy of current laws covering financial abuse under the Powers of Attorney Act 2003.
  • Amending the NSW Interagency Protocol for Responding to Abuse of Older People to reflect any changes to the legislation and practice.
  • Establishment of a Vulnerable Communities Officer role in all Local Area Commands of the Police Force to identify those at risk of financial abuse and to support victims.
  • Education of attorneys appointed under Enduring Powers of Attorney as to their rights and responsibilities.
  • Public education about financial abuse.
  • The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to require banking and finance services to develop systems to prevent abuse and develop protocols to report suspected abuse to public advocates.
  • Mandatory training for banking and finance staff to identify financial abuse.
  • Banking and finance staff to provide customers with information about how to protect themselves from financial abuse.
  • Lawyers to receive training about financial abuse as part of their continuing legal education requirements.
  • Funded age care organisations required to make staff aware of their obligation sunder the NSW Interagency Protocol for Responding to Abuse of Older People.

Alzheimer’s Australia NSW recommends that victims of financial abuse contact NSW Elder Abuse Helpline on 1800 628 221, a confidential service offering information, advice and referrals. 

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Class Actions in Australia

Representative or group proceedings (class actions) were introduced to Australia through the Federal Court of Australia Amendment Act 1991 (Cth) which amended the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). They have since been introduced in Victoria under the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) and in NSW under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Most class actions are brought in the Federal Court of Australia. The court rules require the following thresholds to be met before proceedings can be commenced:

  • There must be seven or more persons bringing a claim against the same defendant(s).
  • The claims must arise out the same, similar or related circumstances.
  • The claims must give rise to at least one substantial common issue of law or fact.

Currently there are a number of class actions either under investigation on foot in Australia. Some of the more notable ones include:

ABC Learning Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

ABC Learning Centres Ltd (In Liquidation) – Chargeholders (Bentham IMF Limited)

ABC Learning Centres Ltd (Shareholder Action) (Bentham IMF Limited)

ABN Amro (now Royal Bank of Scotland) and S&P re Rembrandt Notes 2006-2 (Bentham IMF Limited)

ASAS (Group Action) (Bentham IMF Limited)

Air Cargo Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Air Cargo (Bentham IMF Limited)

Alcoa Alumina Refinery Multiple Plaintiff Action (Shine Lawyers)

Allco Shareholder Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

American Mesh Systems (AMS) Class Action (Shine Lawyers)

Arundel Suntown Tip Class Action (Shine Lawyers)

Australian Capital Reserve Class Action (Slater and Gordon)

Bank Fees Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Bank Fees Class Actions (Bentham IMF Limited)

Bank of Queensland (Bentham IMF Limited)

Billabong Shareholder Class Action (Slater and Gordon)

Black Saturday Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Bladder Cancer Group Action assocated with Actos Diabetes Drug (Maurice Blackburn)

Bonsoy Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Brisconnections (Bentham IMF Limited)

Brooklyn Park Olives (Slater and Gordon)

Cash Converters Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

CBA’s Open Advice Review Program – Commonwealth Financial Planning and Financial Wisdom Claims (Slater and Gordon)

Certain Lloyds Underwriters (Bentham IMF Limited)

CFA Fiskville claims (Slater and Gordon)

Class Action on behalf of people detained on Christmas Island (Maurice Blackburn)

Collingwood Park Mine Subsidence Group (Shine Lawyers)

Dan Bowl Tax Minimisation Scheme Group Action (Shine Lawyers)

DePuy ASR Hip Implants (Maurice Blackburn)

DePuy ASR Hip Replacement Class Action (Shine Lawyers)

DePuy / Johnson & Johnson Knee Replacement Class Action (Shine Lawyers)

DePuy (LCS Duofix Femoral Component) Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Elders Limited (Slater and Gordon)

Equine Influenza Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Fairbridge Farm School (Slater and Gordon)

False Imprisonment of Young People Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Financial Wisdom Class Action (Shine Lawyers)

Firepower (Bentham IMF Limited)

Gladstone Harbour Disaster Representative Class Action (Shine Lawyers)

Grand Western Lodge Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Great Southern – Cattle (Bentham IMF Limited)

Great Southern – Woodlots (Bentham IMF Limited)

Gunns Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Gunns Ltd (Bentham IMF Limited)

Hastie Group (Slater and Gordon)

Hazelwood Coal Mine Fire Investigation (Maurice Blackburn)

Hepatitis C Class Action (Slater and Gordon)

Immigration Detention Claims (Slater and Gordon)

ION Ltd (Bentham IMF Limited)

Johnson & Johnson/ Ethicon Class Action (Shine Lawyers)

Lehman Australia (Bentham IMF Limited)

Leighton Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

LM Investments Funds (Slater and Gordon)

Local Government Financial Services (Bentham IMF Limited)

Lynx Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd (Bentham IMF Limited)

Macquarie Equities Financial Planning Claims (Slater and Gordon)

NAB Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Newcrest Mining Ltd (ASX:NCM) Class Action (Slater and Gordon)

NSW Bushfires Class Action (Slater and Gordon)

NZ bank fees (Slater and Gordon/Play Fair on Fees)

Octaviar (formerly MFS Ltd) (Bentham IMS Limited)

Pacific First Mortgage Fund Claim against Minter Ellison Gold Coast (Maurice Blackburn)

Pacific First Mortgage Fund Claim against Philip Sullivan, Thomas Swan, Stephen McCormick & Ian Donaldson (Maurice Blackburn)

Perth Hills/Parkerville Bushfire (Slater and Gordon)

PIF (Premium Income Fund) Investors v KPMG & Ors (Bentham IMF Limited)

Prevelly-Margaret River Bushfires – November 2011 (Slater and Gordon)

QBE Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Queensland Floods Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Ratings Redress CPDOs (Bentham IMF Limited)

Retail Adventures Pty Limited (In Liquidation) (Bentham IMF Limited)

River City Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

River City Motorway (Bentham IMF Limited)

Standard & Poors (Lehman) (Bentham IMF Limited)

Thalidomide Class Action (Slater & Gordon)

Treasury Wine Estates Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Treasury Wine Estates Limited (Bentham IMF Limited)

Vodafone and Crazy John’s Class Action (Piper Alderman)

Westgem Investments (Bentham IMF)

Workers with Intellectual Disabilities Class Action (Maurice Blackburn)

Zimmer Durom Hip Replacement Class Action (Shine Lawyers)

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Dale Boucher appointed as Uniform Legal Services Commissioner

The Attorneys General for New South Wales and Victoria have announced the appointment of Dale Boucher as the Commissioner for Uniform Legal Services Regulation and Chief Executive of the Legal Services Council.

Mr Boucher is the former head of the Australian Government Solicitor.

The Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) and Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) were enacted on 20 May 2014 and will be implemented in 2015.

The scheme aims to improve the regulation of legal services across the two states, offering reduced red tape, new remedies and standardised complaints processes.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088