Tag Archives: Mosman Lawyers

Mosman Lawyers

Appeals, Bias, Family Law, Judges, LAW FIRM

Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39 | 30 July 1986

ON 30 JULY 1986, the High Court of Australia delivered Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39; (1986) 161 CLR 342 (30 July 1986).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1986/39.html

During a luncheon adjournment, a Family Court counsellor went to the chambers of a judge and had a private conversation in which she expressed certain things including a recommendation that separate representation being granted to the child. Her views were adverse to the husband. Counsel for the parties were then invited to the judges chambers where they were introduced to the counsellor and informed of her recommendations. Comments made by the judge indicated that there had been a private conversation between the counsellor and the judge. After lunch, counsel for the wife made an application seeking appointment of separate representation for the child. The husband asked for the judge to disqualify himself.

The High Court held that it was reasonable for the husband to apprehend that the judge might not bring and impartial or unprejudiced mind to the matter having had a private conversation with the counsellor who had formed an adverse view of him. On that basis, the court made absolute the order nisi for a writ of prohibition directing that the judge be prohibited from proceeding further with the matter.

The case is notable for Justice Mason’s warning that judicial officers are required to discharge their obligations unless disqualified to do so. They must not readily accept suggestions of appearance of bias, otherwise parties might be encouraged to seek their disqualification, without justification, for strategic reasons.

Per Mason J at 352:

“There may be many situations in which previous decisions of a judicial officer on issues of fact and law may generate an expectation that he is likely to decide issues in a particular case adversely to one of the parties. But this does not mean either that he will approach the issues in that case otherwise than with an impartial and unprejudiced mind in the sense in which that expression is used in the authorities or that his previous decisions provide an acceptable basis for inferring that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will approach the issues in this way.
…
Although it is important that justice must be seen to be done, it is equally important that judicial officers discharge their duty to sit and do not, by acceding too readily to suggestions of appearance of bias, encourage parties to believe that by seeking the disqualification of a judge, they will have their case tried by someone thought to be more likely to decide the case in their favour.”

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Employment Law, LAW FIRM

Saaghy v Bunnings Group Ltd [2014] VCAT 951

Saaghy v Bunnings Group Ltd (Civil Claims) [2014] VCAT 951 (29 July 2014)

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Uncategorized

Anglia Television Ltd v Reed [1972] | 29 July 1971

ON 29 JULY 1971, the English Court of appeal delivered Anglia Television Ltd v Reed [1972] 1 Q.B. 60.

http://faculty.law.ubc.ca/biukovic/supplements/anglia.htm

The defendant, Robert Reed, was an American actor best known for his role as Mike Brady in the Brady Bunch television series. In 1968 he contracted with the plaintiff, Anglia Television Ltd, to act in a movie to be filmed in Great Britain. Due to a mix-up with his bookings, the defendant repudiated the contract. The plaintiff sought damages for wasted expenditure incurred before and after the formation of the contract. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was only entitled to wasted expenditure after the contract.

The trial judge awarded the defendant damages for the wasted expenditure incurred both before and after the formation of the contract. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal.

Lord Denning MR held: “If the plaintiff claims the wasted expenditure, he is not limited to the expenditure incurred after the contract was concluded. He can claim also the expenditure incurred before the contract, provided that it was such as would reasonably be in the contemplation of the parties as likely to be wasted if the contract was broken”.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Criminal Law

NSW Custody Statistics: Quarterly Update June 2014

ON 28 JULY 2014, the NSW Custody Statistics for the June Quarter were released.

Click to access nswcustodystatisticsjun2014.pdf

Numbers of adults and juveniles in custody fell significantly over the period from April to June. Adults dropped by 27% and juveniles dropped 16%.

The drop is said to be attributable to a fall in the number of defendants being held in remand, which coincides with the introduction of the new Bail Act 2013 (NSW).

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Courts and Tribunals, Judges

Justice Blanch retirement

The Chief Judge of the District Court of NSW, Justice R O Blanch AM, is to retire.

A retirement ceremony is to be held at 9.30am on 7 August 2014 in the Banco Court, Queens Square, Sydney.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Appeals, Causation, Negligence, Personal Injury

Bunnings Group Ltd v Borg [2014] NSWCA 240

ON 28 JULY 2014, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Bunnings Group Ltd v Borg [2014] NSWCA 240.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172896

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against a District Court decision awarding damages to customer of Bunnings Dural who was injured when some timber sleepers fell off a forklift onto his foot.

The Court of Appeal found that there was insufficient factual findings to come to the conclusion of negligence: there was conflicting evidence of the tilting of the forklift and no evidence about effect of warning or what would have occurred if there were more staff.

The Court of Appeal found that there were insufficient findings for it to make a substituted judgment.

The Court of Appeal set aside the verdict and ordered a retrial on the grounds that the trial judge failed to make clear findings about breach and causation as required under the Civil Liability Act 2002, ss 5B, 5C, 5D and 5E.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Planning Law

Klaric v Mosman Municipal Council [2014] NSWLEC 1156

ON 28 July 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Klaric v Mosman Municipal Council [2014] NSWLEC 1156.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=173330

The court upheld an appeal and granted consent to the modification of a development modification application in respect of consent for a dwelling house at 69 Parriwi Road, Mosman.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Courts and Tribunals

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia http://www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au/ first sat in 2000 as the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and in 2012 was re-named the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court exercises federal jurisdiction under the Australian Constitution, sharing the jurisdictions of the Federal Court and Family Court of Australia. The court hears federal matters such as administrative law, admiralty law, banking law, child support, copyright, family law, human rights, industrial law, privacy, and trade practices.

The court aims to offer a simpler and more convenient alternative to the Federal Court and the Family Court.

The court is presided over by a Chief Judge (currently Chief Judge John Pascoe AO CVO) and a number of Judges.

The court sits in the locations of the other federal courts. The main locations are in Melbourne, Dandenong, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Darwin, Launceston, Hobart, Newcastle, Perth and Townsville. The court also conducts sittings in other metropolitan and regional areas.

The Sydney registry is located at the Federal Court registry, Law Courts Building, Level 17, Queens Square, Sydney NSW 2000, tel (02) 9230 8567. In Sydney the court sits at either John Maddison Tower, Level 6, 88 Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW 2000 or TTG Building, Levels 10 and 12, 80 William Street, Sydney NSW 2000.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Business law

Business law in NSW

Businesses in New South Wales are governed by many state and federal laws, including:

 

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Civil procedure, Criminal Procedure, Practice and Procedure

Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34 | 27 July 1992

ON 27 JULY 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34; (1992) 174 CLR 509 (27 July 1992).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/34.html

The case concerns the use of the court’s power to grant a stay of proceedings when the proceedings have been used for an improper purpose.

After being dismissed from the University of Newcastle, Dr Spautz threatened, instituted and maintained private prosecutions of charges of conspiracy and criminal defamation against former colleagues including Professor Williams and others (“the appellants”).

The appellants obtained a stay of proceedings order from the Supreme Court of NSW. The trial judge found that the proceedings had been brought for the improper purpose of “exerting pressure upon the University of Newcastle to reinstate him and/or to agree to a favourable settlement of his wrongful dismissal case”.

The NSW Court of Appeal quashed the orders, holding that the appellants could receive a fair trial and that there was no evidence of any misconduct in the way the prosecution was conducted.

The High Court allowed an appeal, setting aside the Court of Appeal’s decision, declaring that the prosecutions were an abuse of process and ordering that the prosecutions be stayed permanently.

The decision provides:

  • Australian courts have the inherent jurisdiction to stay criminal and civil proceedings.
  • The court may grant stays in (1) proceedings in which a party may not receive a fair trial and (2) proceedings brought for an improper purpose.
  • Before granting a stay for improper purpose, the court is not required to satisfy itself that there will be an unfair trial if the prosecution is not stopped: at 519-520.
  • Proceedings may be stayed notwithstanding that the prosecution has a prima facie case: at 522.
  • The court must have the power to act effectively within its jurisdiction, even if it means refraining from exercising their jurisdiction as it is in the public interest to ensure public confidence that the processes are used fairly and not for oppression or injustice.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088