ON THIS DAY IN 2012, the Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012 commenced.
Click to access mlep20122011647295.pdf
1300 00 2088
Tag Archives: Mosman Lawyers
Mosman Lawyers
Innes v Rail Corporation of NSW (No 2) [2013] FMCA 36
ON THIS DAY IN 2013, the Federal Magistrates Court delivered Innes v Rail Corporation of NSW (No 2) [2013] FMCA 36 (1 February 2013).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2013/36.html
The Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Commissioner successfully sued the Rail Corporation of NSW on the grounds that it failed to provide audible train announcements for the hearing impaired.
1300 00 2088
New Alcohol Interlock Laws
From 1 FEBRUARY 2015, new drink driving laws come into effect. It will be mandatory for courts to order drivers convicted of high range, repeat and other serious drink driving offences with a minimum license disqualification and a minimum 12 month participation in the alcohol interlock program.
For further information go to:
- New Alcohol Interlock Laws
- Factsheet on Mandatory Alcohol Interlock Program
- Factsheet on Increased Traffic Offender Penalties
- Factsheet for Legal Practitioners
- Guardian Interlock
- Draeger Safety Pacific
- Alcohol Interlock Program – Information for Participants
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic [2007] HCA 1
ON THIS DAY IN 2007, the High Court of Australia delivered Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic [2007] HCA 1; (2007) 232 ALR 232; (2007) 81 ALJR 525 (31 January 2007).
Section 563A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provided:
“Payment of a debt owed by a company to a person in the person’s capacity as a member of the company, whether by way of dividends, profits or otherwise, is to be postponed until all debts owed to, or claims made by, persons otherwise than as members of the company have been satisfied.”
The High Court held that s563A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) did not apply to shareholders making a claim for damages for losses suffered as a result of the company’s wrongdoing when acquiring the shares as such claims are not owed to the shareholder in their capacity as a member of the company. Accordingly, a claim by Mr Margaretic for losses arising from being misled in the acquisition of his shares before the company went into administration were to be treated as debts under s553 of the Act and ranked equally with the claims of other creditors.
Parliament has since amended the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by the passage of the Corporations (Sons of Gwalia) Act 2010. In general terms, the effect of the amendment is that (1) share ownership does not preclude a claim against the insolvent company but payment shareholder claims relating to share dealings is to be postponed until the payment of all other debts and (2) a person whose claim has been postponed is entitled to receive documents relating to the insolvency and in some cases, with the permission of the court, vote at meetings regarding the conduct of the administration.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/1.html
1300 00 2088
How to find a good lawyer in Sydney
LEGAL HELPDESK LAWYERS is a new generation private legal practice that offers legal guidance to individuals and businesses in Sydney’s Lower North Shore and Northern Beaches.
We provide information, advice and advocacy to those who need – or might need – legal representation in any area of law.
If required, we refer customers to a reliable network of specialist lawyers. We take the guesswork out of finding a good lawyer.
Our mission is to promote better local access to good legal help.
Confidentiality and privacy is protected by law.
1300 00 2088
1300 00 2088
SYDNEY CBD, LOWER NORTH SHORE, NORTHERN BEACHES
CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 1
ON 28 JANUARY 2015, the High Court of Australia delivered CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 1.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/1.html
The plaintiff and 156 other passengers were on an unseaworthy Indian flagged vessel which was intercepted by an Australian border protection vessel in Australia’s contiguous zone in the Indian Ocean. The plaintiff claimed to be a refugee fleeing persecution in Sri Lanka for being a Tamil. The plaintiff and the other passengers were detained by the Australian maritime officers and first taken to India and then to the Australian Territory of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands where they were placed into immigration detention.
The plaintiff claimed damages for wrongful imprisonment, alleging that the detention was unlawful under the Maritime Powers Act because he was not afforded procedural fairness in that he was not asked whether or not he was a person in respect of whom Australia owed non-refoulement obligations.
The High Court dismissed the claim, holding that the detention was not unlawful under the Maritime Powers Act 2013 (Cth). The court held that:
- The Maritime Powers Act was not subject to an obligation to afford procedural fairness.
- The detention was lawful even though it was the implementation of a decision of the Australian Government, without independent consideration of whether or not the detention should have taken place.
- The decision to take the plaintiff to India was not unlawful despite no arrangement between India and Australia existing at the time.
The High Court decided that it was unnecessary to determine whether or not the detention could be authorised under the Commonwealth’s non-statutory executive power.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day [1998] HCA 3 | 23 January 1998
ON 23 January 1998, the High Court of Australia delivered Pyrenees Shire Council v Day [1998] HCA 3; 192 CLR 330; 151 ALR 147; 72 ALJR 152 (23 January 1998).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/3.html
The High Court rejected the “doctrine of general reliance” of Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424 (1985) 157 CLR 424.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Home Building Compensation Fund (HBCF)
The Home Building Act 1989 has been amended so that from 15 January 2015 the Home Warranty Insurance Fund has been renamed the Home Building Compensation Fund (HBCF). A new register of certificates issued and claims made can be accessed by visiting hbcf.nsw.gov.au.
1300 00 2088
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd (“Wagon Mound No 1”) [1961] UKPC 1 | 18 January 1961
ON 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd (“Wagon Mound No 1”) [1961] UKPC 1 (18 January 1961)
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1961/1.html
In cases of negligence, the defendant is not liable for damage just because it was a direct result of a negligent act. The Privy Council ruled that the “essential factor in determining liability is whether the damage is of such a kind as the reasonable man should have foreseen” (at 426).
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 1 | 14 JANUARY 1997
ON 14 JANUARY 1997, the High Court of Australia delivered Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 1; (1997) 189 CLR 146; (1997) 141 ALR 353; (1997) 71 ALJR 294 (14 January 1997).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/1.html
Per Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ (at 154):
“Case management is not an end in itself. It is an important and useful aid for ensuring the prompt and efficient disposal of litigation. But it ought always to be borne in mind, even in changing times, that the ultimate aim of the court is the attainment of justice and no principle of case management can be allowed to supplant that aim.”
The decision has since been used as an authority for the propositions that (1) doing justice between the parties is paramount to the court’s use of discretion when determining an application for leave to amend (2) case management principles should not limit a court’s discretion when considering such applications and (3) an application for leave to amend should be approached on the basis that a party is entitled to raise an arguable claim subject to payment of costs by way of compensation. Since the High Court’s 2007 decision in Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2009/27.html, JL Holdings no longer is authority for propositions (2) and (3).
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 