Tag Archives: SOLICITORS

OUR FIRST SYDNEY SHOP WILL OPEN IN MOSMAN ON 18 DECEMBER 2014

December 17, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

Legal Helpdesk provides legal information and advice to local individuals and businesses on Sydney’s Lower North Shore and Northern Beaches.

We are unique in terms of service delivery, accessibility, affordability and mission.

We troubleshoot all matters and if required refer them to a network of reliable Solicitors and Barristers with suitable expertise.

A fully qualified solicitor is available for face to face consultations at this office in return for a fee. Our fees are as follows:

Basic consultation (<20 mins and/or referral only): $60.00
Standard consultation (20-40 mins): $120.00
Extended consultation (40-60 mins and/or complex enquiry): $180.00.

In selected matters we accept retainers beyond the initial consultation. In such cases we are required to enter into a costs agreement prescribed under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW).

The shop will be open Monday to Saturday and some weekday evenings. Specific hours will be advertised in due course.

Our aim is to make it easier for people to find the right information, advice and results.

Confidentiality and privacy is protected by law.

1300 00 2088

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA

LAW FIRM

Henderson v Queensland [2014] HCA 52

December 16, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 16 DECEMBER 2014, the High Court of Australia delivered Henderson v Queensland [2014] HCA 52 (10 December 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/52.html

The appellant had made an unsuccessful application to the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking an order that cash to the value of $598,325 be excluded from forfeiture under Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Q). The cash was the proceeds of the sale of jewellery given the appellant by his now deceased father.

The High Court dismissed an appeal, holding that the appellant had failed to discharge an onus under the Act to satisfy Supreme Court that it was more probable than not that the jewellery was not illegally acquired by his father.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2010/357.html

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Damages, LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Personal Injury

Todorovic v Waller [1981] HCA 72 | 16 December 1981

December 16, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 16 DECEMBER 1981, the High Court of Australia delivered Todorovic v Waller [1981] HCA 72; (1981) 150 CLR 402 (16 December 1981).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1981/72.html

The High Court ruled that a discount rate be applied to the assessment of lump sum damages for personal injuries so that the present value of future economic loss be discounted by 3% to allow for inflation, tax and changes in wages.

Subsequent legislation has increased the rate to 5% in most Australian jurisdictions.

1300 00 2088

Administrative Law, Courts and Tribunals, Judges

Appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

December 14, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 10 DECEMBER 2014, Federal Attorney-General Senator George Brandis QC announced the following appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal:

Deputy President: Mr Gary Humphries.
Senior Member: Dr James Popple.

Senator Brandis also announced the reappointments of Senior Members McDermott, Ettinger and O’Loughlin and Members Hughes and Alexander.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM

Fit out update: Day 14 (Part 2)

December 10, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

Signs are done!

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM

Fit out update: Day 14

December 10, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

Eric returned this morning and is putting up the signs.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Administrative Law

Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development [2014] HCA 50

December 10, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 10 DECEMBER 2014, the High Court of Australia delivered Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development [2014] HCA 50 (10 December 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/50.html

The appellants had sought a review of a decision of the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development to approve a development application for a commercial development. The site of the development was near the appellants’ premises. Two of the three appellants, who were supermarkets, were held to have standing to seek review as they were “persons aggrieved” by the Minister’s decision as it affected their economic interests. The third appellant, a landlord of one of the supermarkets, was held to not be a person aggrieved as it had not established that its interests were adversely affected.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Property Law, Stamp Duty

Commissioner of State Revenue v Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd; Commissioner of State Revenue v Lend Lease IMT 2 [HP] Pty Ltd; Commissioner of State Revenue v Lend Lease Real Estate Investments Limited [2014] HCA 51

December 10, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 10 DECEMBER 2014, the High Court of Australia delivered Commissioner of State Revenue v Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd; Commissioner of State Revenue v Lend Lease IMT 2 [HP] Pty Ltd; Commissioner of State Revenue v Lend Lease Real Estate Investments Limited [2014] HCA 51 (10 December 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/51.html

The High Court held that the duty to be charged on the land transfers at Melbourne Docklands is to be assessed with reference to a “single, integrated and indivisible transaction” consisting of the payments under the sale of land contracts as well as payments made under a “development agreement”.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Equity, Family Law, LAW FIRM, Property disputes, Property Law, Trusts

Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59 | 10 December 1987

December 10, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON THIS DAY IN 1987, the High Court of Australia delivered Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59; (1987) 164 CLR 137 (10 December 1987).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/59.html

The parties had lived together in a de facto relationship. They pooled their earnings to meet all outgoings of the joint relationship, including mortgage payments over the family home purchased with the husband as the only registered proprietor.

After about four years the relationship came to an end. The wife sought a declaration that she held an interest in the property in trust. The husband asserted that only he held the legal title to the house.

The court held that the wife held a beneficial interest in the property by way of constructive trust.

Per Mason CJ, Wilson and Deane JJ at 149:

“The case is accordingly one in which the parties have pooled their earnings for the purposes of their joint relationship, one of the purposes of that relationship being to secure accommodation for themselves and their child. Their contributions, financial and otherwise, to the acquisition of the land, the building of the house, the purchase of furniture and the making of their home, were on the basis of, and for the purposes of, that joint relationship. In this situation the appellant’s assertion, after the relationship had failed, that the Leumeah property, which was financed in part through the pooled funds, is his sole property, is his property beneficially to the exclusion of any interest at all on the part of the respondent, amounts to unconscionable conduct which attracts the intervention of equity and the imposition of a constructive trust at the suit of the respondent.”

The High Court declared that the parties hold beneficial interests in the property of 55% to the husband and 45% to the wife, subject to adjustments.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088