Tag Archives: Mosman Lawyers

Mosman Lawyers

Discrimination Law, LAW FIRM

Grant v State of Victoria (The Office of Public Prosecutions) (No.2) [2014] FCCA 991

ON 22 MAY 2014, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia delivered Grant v State of Victoria (The Office of Public Prosecutions) (No.2) [2014] FCCA 991 (22 May 2014).

A solicitor who had been dismissed for poor performance successfully sued his employer, the Office of Public Prosecutions, for an adverse action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The poor performance was found to be a result of mental illness and that the employer should have understood the implications.

The court ordered that he be reinstated, be paid $93,750 (less tax) and a pecuniary penalty of $10,000.

Employers should reasonably accommodate an employee’s mental illness to allow them to continue in their employment. Poor performance needs to be carefully managed so as to avoid conduct constituting discrimination, harassment and bullying.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence

Lee v R; Lee v R [2014] HCA 20

ON 21 MAY 2014, the High Court of Australia delivered Lee v The Queen; Lee v The Queen [2014] HCA 20 (21 May 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/20.html

The High Court allowed two appeals, ordering that convictions be quashed with respect to various drug and firearms offences.

Before the trial, the appellants had given evidence before the NSW Crime Commission and such material was subject of a direction that it not be published if publication would prejudice a fair trial. Contrary to s13(9) of the New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985, the material was published to members of the NSW Police Force and officers of the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions before the trial.

The appellants contended that the unlawful publication amounted to a miscarriage of justice under s6(1) of the NSW Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

The High Court held that the purpose of s13(9) was to protect a fair trial of a person who may later be charged with offences investigated by the Crime Commission. The later possession and possible use of the material by the prosecution was unfair, shifting the balance of power to the prosecution and departing from the kind of fair trial that the system of justice provides (as the court referred to in X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA) and that s13(9) aims to protect.

The court said that the prosecution ought to have alerted the trial judge that it had come into possession of this material so that the judge could make directions to ensure that the trial was not affected.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Environmental Law, Planning Law

7 Prince Albert Street, Mosman NSW 2088

ON 21 MAY 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Bennett v Mosman Council [2014] NSWLEC 1091.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=171617

An appeal against a refusal of a development application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling at 7 Prince Albert Street, Mosman, was dismissed.

The court concluded that the demolition in Prince Albert Street would diminish the historic and aesthetic values of the Bradleys Head Road Conservation Area.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Environmental Law, Planning Law

Bennett v Mosman Council [2014] NSWLEC 1091

ON 21 MAY 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Bennett v Mosman Council [2014] NSWLEC 1091.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=171617

An appeal against a refusal of a development application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling at 7 Prince Albert Street, Mosman, was dismissed.

The court concluded that the demolition in Prince Albert Street would diminish the historic and aesthetic values of the Bradleys Head Road Conservation Area.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Legislation, New & Noteworthy

New Bail Act

ON 20 MAY 2014, the NSW Bail Act 2013 commenced.

Planning Law

Highbury Group Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2014] NSWLEC 1094

ON 20 MAY 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Highbury Group Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2014] NSWLEC 1094 (20 May 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2014/1094.html

A developer made an application under s96(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify under s96(2) a development consent with respect to residential units at 4 West Street, Balgowlah.

The appeal was upheld and the development consent was modified accordingly.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Uncategorized

4 West Street, Balgowlah NSW 2093

ON 20 MAY 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Highbury Group Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2014] NSWLEC 1094 (20 May 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2014/1094.html

A developer made an application under s96(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify under s96(2) a development consent with respect to residential units at 4 West Street, Balgowlah.

The appeal was upheld and the development consent was modified accordingly.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Planning Law

Lucas v Pittwater Council [2014] NSWLEC 1137

ON 19 MAY 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Lucas v Pittwater Council [2014] NSWLEC 1137.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172676

The court upheld an appeal of a decision of Pittwater Council in which the council refused a development application for the construction of a bus depot at 11 Wirreanda Road, Ingleside. The court approved the development subject to conditions.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Law reform, Legislation, New & Noteworthy

Lawyers rules to change

ON 13 MAY 2014, the NSW Legislative Council passed the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Bill 2014.

The new Act will repeal the Legal Profession Act and introduce the Legal Profession Uniform Law early next year, enabling a single national framework for the regulation of the profession.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/NSWBills.nsf/0/07EB41C6B04DCA11CA257CA600183BBA

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Equity, Estoppel, Uncategorized

Sidhu v Van Dyke [2014] HCA 19

ON 16 MAY 2014, the High Court of Australia delivered Sidhu v Van Dyke [2014] HCA 19 (16 May 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/19.html

The High Court dismissed an appeal from the NSW Court of Appeal, which had held that Mr Sidhu could not depart from assurances previously given to his former partner, Ms Van Dyke, that he would transfer certain real property to her.

The High Court was satisfied from the evidence given by Ms Van Dyke at the trial that she had acted to her detriment in reliance on Mr Sidhu’s representations and that she was entitled to equitable compensation to be assessed with reference to the value of the property in question.

.”

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088