Mosman Lawyers
ON 28 JUNE 2012, the US Supreme Court delivered National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius 567 US (2012).
Click to access 11-393c3a2.pdf
The court upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 27 JUNE 2014, the Supreme Court of NSW delivered ANZ Banking Group v Arapali [2014] NSWSC 881 (27 June 2014).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/881.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 27 JUNE 2014, the Supreme Court of NSW delivered National Australia Bank Ltd v Kamboj [2014] NSWSC 865 (27 June 2014).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/865.html
1300 00 2088
ON 27 JUNE 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Catalina Island Pty Limited v Pittwater Council [2014] NSWLEC 1125.
http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172396
A developer appealed a decision of Pittwater Council to refuse a development application for the construction of eight aged and disability apartments on two allotments on 2(a) residential land between Bangally Way and Binburra Street, Avalon.
The court refused the appeal, finding no errors in the council’s decision making.
1300 00 2088
ON 27 JUNE 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Catalina Island Pty Limited v Pittwater Council [2014] NSWLEC 1125.
http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172396
A developer appealed a decision of Pittwater Council to refuse a development application for the construction of eight aged and disability apartments on two allotments on 2(a) residential land between Bangally Way and Binburra Street, Avalon.
The court refused the appeal, finding no errors in the council’s decision making.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 27 JUNE 2014, the High Court of Australia delivered FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 26 (27 June 2014).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/26.html
Click to access hca-26-2014-06-27.pdf
The appellant was a Chinese national alleged to have committed serious crimes including kidnapping and murder in 1996. His protection visa application was refused by the immigration minister or the grounds that he was excluded from protection due to the alleged crimes. The Administrative Appeals tribunal affirmed the minister’s decision and the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal against the AAT.
The High Court allowed an appeal against the Full Court, holding that the AAT had made a jurisdictional error in how it found that the refugee had committed the crimes.
1300 00 2088
ON 27 JUNE 2014, the County Court of Victoria delivered Commonwealth Bank of Austrlalia v Love & Anor [2014] VCC 887 (27 June 2014).
1300 00 2088
ON 27 JUNE 2001, the Supreme Court of NSW delivered Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 510.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 26 JUNE 2014, the Senate Economics References Committee released it’s final report entitled Performance of Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/ASIC/Final_Report/index
Of note, the committee found that there had been misconduct on the part of the advisors and planners within the Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s financial planning business and recommended that an enquiry, in the form of a judicial enquiry or Royal Commission, be established to investigate those matters as well as allegations of cover up.
It was recommended that the proposed inquiry identify the conduct amounting to breaches of law or professional standards and review all files to assess the appropriateness of the compensation process and the amounts of compensation offered by the bank.
The Bank’s CEO, Ian Narev, has apologised to the customers who received “poor advice” but and prefers to have an internal “independent” inquiry, called the Open Advice Review Program, rather than a Royal Commission.
1300 00 2088
ON 26 JUNE 2013, the High Court of Australia delivered X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29 (26 June 2013).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/29.html
The court held that the Commonwealth Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 did not authorise an examiner to require a person charged with a Commonwealth offence to answer questions before trial about the subject matter of the offence. Such action would fundamentally alter the balance of power towards the prosecution and represent a departure from the fair trial that the system requires. Such a requirement therefore could only be effected by express statutory language or necessary implication.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 