Tag Archives: Mosman Lawyers

Mosman Lawyers

Constitutional law

Bropho v Western Australia [1990] HCA 24 | 20 June 1990

ON 20 JUNE 1990, the High Court of Australia delivered Bropho v Western Australia [1990] HCA 24; (1990) 171 CLR 1 (20 June 1990).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1990/24.html

There is no basis in principle for unqualified insistence on the inflexible application of the rule that the Crown is presumed not to be bound by legislation unless the presumption is overturned by either express words or necessarily implication. Rather, the strength of the presumption will depend on the circumstances, including the content and purpose of the statute.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Costs

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Khoury [2014] NSWSC 691

ON 20 JUNE 2014, the Supreme Court of NSW delivered Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Khoury; Khoury v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] NSWSC 691 (20 June 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/691.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, United Kingdom

M’Naughten’s case | 19 June 1843

ON 19 JUNE 1843, the House of Lords delivered M’Naughten’s case.

The accused was found not guilty on the grounds of insanity. The decision set out the common law principles to be applied when making a defence of insanity.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1843/J16.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Constitutional law, Legislation

Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] HCA 23

ON 19 JUNE 2014, the High Court of Australia delivered Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] HCA 23 (19 June 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/23.html

The High Court held the funding of School Chaplaincy services to schools in Queensland is constitutionally invalid because the legislation purporting to authorise the Commonwealth to enter into agreements to provide the funding is not supported by any head of legislative power under the Australian Constitution.

This is the second time that the national school chaplains program has been held to be invalid: see Williams v The Commonwealth (2012) 248 CLR 156; [2012] HCA 23 (“Williams (No 1)“) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/23.html.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Evidence, Legislation

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) | 19 June 1995

ON 19 JUNE 1995, the NSW Evidence Act 1995 was enacted.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Defamation

McDonald’s Corporation v Steel & Morris (“McLibel case”) | 19 June 1997

ON 19 JUNE 1997, the English High Court delivered McDonald’s Corporation v Steel & Morris [1997] EWHC QB 366.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1997/366.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Constitutional law, Migration Law

Plaintiff S156-2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 22

ON 18 JUNE 2014, the High Court of Australia delivered Plaintiff S156-2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 22 (18 June 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/22.html

Click to access hca-22-2014-06-18.pdf

The court held that certain provisions of the Commonwealth Migration Act 1958, under which a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Iran was detained and subsequently removed to Manus Island, were constitutionally valid.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Civil procedure, Duty of Care, Legislation, Medical negligence, Negligence, Nuisance, Occupiers Liability, Personal Injury, Product liability, Professional negligence, Torts

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) | 18 June 2002

ON 18 JUNE 2002, the NSW Civil Liability Act 2002 was enacted.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/

The substantive provisions commenced retrospectively on 20 March 2002. There have been successive amendments, notably those which commenced in December 2002 and 2004 and June 2006.

The Act modifies the Australian common law with respect to civil liability claims in New South Wales, except those set out in s3B.

The Act limits the circumstances in which people may recover damages for civil wrongs and the amount of damages and costs they recover.

The significant features of the Act include:

  • Statement of principles for determining negligence.
  • Modification of causation test.
  • No duty to warn of obvious risk.
  • No liability for materialisation of inherent risk.
  • No liability for harm suffered from obvious risks of dangerous recreational activities.
  • No duty of care for risk warning of dangerous recreational activity.
  • Standard of care for professionals.
  • Contributory negligence can defeat a claim.
  • Fixing damages for economic and non-economic loss, including thresholds, discounts and maximum limits.
  • Limiting interest.
  • Restrictions for persons in custody.
  • Restrictions for mental harm.
  • Allocation of proportionate liability for concurrent wrongdoers.
  • Limiting liability of public authorities.
  • Restricting recovery for intoxicated persons.
  • Exclusion of liability for persons acting in self defence, good Samaritans, food donors or volunteers.
  • Apologies not to affect liability.
  • Limiting damages for birth of a child.
  • Exclusion of liability for trespass or nuisance by ordinary use of aircraft.
  • Costs restrictions.

The Act does not apply to claims (or parts of claims) regarding:

  • Intentional acts with the intent to cause injury or death or sexual assault or other sexual misconduct.
  • Dust diseases.
  • Tobacco.
  • Motor Accidents and public transport accidents.
  • Workers, Victims and Sporting Injuries compensation.

 

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Environmental Law, Injunctions, Planning Law

879B, 881-891 South Dowling Street and 54A, 56-60 O’Dea Avenue, Waterloo

ON 17 JUNE 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Council of the City of Sydney v Karimbla Properties (No. 24) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWLEC 77.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172226

The court refused to grant an interlocutory injunction brought by the council against the project managers carrying out building work on a large construction site at 879B, 881-891 South Dowling Street and 54A, 56-60 O’Dea Avenue, Waterloo, despite there being no construction certificate for the works.

Justice Craig ruled that, on the evidence before her, the balance of convenience weighed in favour of the project managers. Craig J’s reasons for refusing the injunction included: there would be a detriment to the construction workforce; no prejudice had been demonstrated; the work appears to have been performed in accordance with the Building Code; the council did not seek demolition; further work will be closely supervised; and outstanding conditions for consent are capable of timely resolution.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Environmental Law, Injunctions, Planning Law

Council of the City of Sydney v Karimbla Properties (No. 24) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWLEC 77

ON 17 JUNE 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Council of the City of Sydney v Karimbla Properties (No. 24) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWLEC 77.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172226

The court refused to grant an interlocutory injunction brought by the council against the project managers carrying out building work on a large construction site at 879B, 881-891 South Dowling Street and 54A, 56-60 O’Dea Avenue, Waterloo, despite there being no construction certificate for the works.

Justice Craig ruled that, on the evidence before her, the balance of convenience weighed in favour of the project managers. Craig J’s reasons for granting the injunction included: there would be a detriment to the construction workforce; no prejudice had been demonstrated; the work appears to have been performed in accordance with the Building Code; the council did not seek demolition; further work will be closely supervised; and outstanding conditions for consent are capable of timely resolution.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088