Tag Archives: SOLICITORS

Hollingsworth v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 220

July 7, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 7 JULY 2014, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Hollingsworth v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 220.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172610

The court dismissed a Notice of Motion in which Kim Hollingsworth, representing herself, sought to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in respect of a District Court decision of Judge Neilson on an appeal from the Local Court. The decision related to ancillary orders made with respect to convictions under the NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 regarding horses owned by, or in the care of, Ms Hollingsworth.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Administrative Law, Courts and Tribunals

Heatley v Tasmanian Racing and Gaming Commission [1977] HCA 39 | 7 July 1977

July 7, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 7 JULY 1977, the High Court of Australia delivered Heatley v Tasmanian Racing & Gaming Commission [1977] HCA 39; (1977)137 CLR 487 (7 July 1977).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1977/39.html

Heatley had been warned off racecourses in Tasmania without any notice by the Commission of it’s intention to do so. The court held that the Commission was bound by the rules of natural justice to give such notice (unless there was an emergency) and that Heatley should have had the opportunity to make representations before the Commission made it’s decision.

The court found that Heatley, as a member of the public, had a legitimate expectation of being admitted to the racecourse and that for the rules of natural justice to apply, the applicant only needed to have a legitimate expectation rather than a right or interest.

1300 00 2088

Administrative Law

Sydney Ferries v Morton [2010] NSWCA 156 | 6 July 2010

July 6, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 6 JULY 2010, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Sydney Ferries v Morton [2010] NSWCA 156 (6 July 2010).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2010/156.html

1300 00 2088

Personal Injury, Workers Compensation

Advertising personal injury services

July 6, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

Lawyers in NSW are banned from advertising personal injury services.

According to the NSW Law Society, the use of the following words is banned in lawyers’ advertising:

accidents
asbestos litigation
chemical spill injuries
car accidents
diving accidents
driving accidents
disability (subject to context)
dust diseases
hurt at work
hurt on road
injury law
medical malpractice
medical negligence
motor vehicle accident claims
motor vehicle collision claims
motor vehicle accidents
motor vehicle injuries
occupiers liability
pain and disability
personal injury
public liability
public place accidents
shopping centre accidents
slips, trips and falls
toxic exposures
victims compensation
victims of crime
work accidents
work place injuries
workers compensation

The relevant provisions which prohibit such advertising are contained in clauses 23 to 40 of the Legal Profession Regulation 2005 and clauses 74 to 80 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2003.

Clause 24 of the Legal Profession Regulation 2005 provides:

24 Restriction on advertising personal injury services

(1) A barrister or solicitor must not publish or cause or permit to be published an advertisement that promotes the availability or use of a barrister or solicitor to provide legal services if the advertisement includes any reference to or depiction of any of the following:
(a) personal injury,
(b) any circumstance in which personal injury might occur, or any activity, event or circumstance that suggests or could suggest the possibility of personal injury, or any connection to or association with personal injury or a cause of personal injury,
(c) a
“personal injury legal service” (that is, any legal service that relates to recovery of money, or any entitlement to recover money, in respect of personal injury).
Maximum penalty: 200 penalty units.
(2) A contravention of this clause by a barrister or solicitor is declared to be professional misconduct.
Note : A contravention of clause 75 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2003 can also be a contravention of this clause.
(3) Evidence that a barrister or solicitor has been convicted of an offence under this clause or under clause 75 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2003 is sufficient evidence of a contravention of this clause by the barrister or solicitor for the purposes of any proceedings under Chapter 4 (Complaints and discipline) of the Act.

Clause 23 provides:

23 Definitions

In this Division:

“advertisement” means any communication of information (whether by means of writing, or any still or moving visual image or message or audible message, or any combination of them) that advertises or otherwise promotes a product or service, whether or not that is its purpose or only purpose and whether or not that is its effect or only effect.

“personal injury” includes pre-natal injury, impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition, and disease.

“publish” means:

(a) publish in a newspaper, magazine, journal, periodical, directory or other printed publication, or
(b) disseminate by means of the exhibition or broadcast of a photograph, slide, film, video recording, audio recording or other recording of images or sound, either as a public exhibition or broadcast or as an exhibition or broadcast to persons attending a place for the purpose of receiving professional advice, treatment or assistance, or
(c) broadcast by radio or television, or
(d) display on an internet website or otherwise publicly disseminate by means of the internet, or
(e) publicly exhibit in, on, over or under any building, vehicle or place or in the air in view of persons in or on any street or public place, or
(f) display on any document (including a business card or letterhead) gratuitously sent or gratuitously delivered to any person or thrown or left on any premises or on any vehicle, or
(g) display on any document provided to a person as a receipt or record in respect of a transaction or bet.

“solicitor” includes the following:
(a) a partnership of which a solicitor is a member (but only if the business of the partnership includes business of a kind ordinarily conducted by a solicitor),
(b) a solicitor corporation,
(c) an incorporated legal practice.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Administrative Law, Practice and Procedure

Re Hunter Valley Developments Pty Limited [1984] FCA 176 | 5 July 1984

July 5, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 5 JULY 1984, the Federal Court of Australia delivered Re Hunter Valley Developments Pty Limited; Anthony Neary Walker; Mende Brown v the Honourable Barry Cohen Minister of Home Affairs and Environment [1984] FCA 176; (1984) Admn 96-034 /; 3 FCR 344 (5 July 1984).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1984/176.html

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM

Spit Junction Lawyers

July 5, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

At Legal Helpdesk we provide legal information and advice to local individuals and businesses on Sydney’s Lower North Shore and Northern Beaches. We triage all types of matters and if required refer them to a network of reliable solicitors and barristers with suitable expertise.

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

Connect, follow, like, join, share etc

ALL AREAS OF LAW administrative law, advice, advocacy, animal law, arbitration, attorneys, aviation law, banking and finance, bankruptcy, barristers, business law, breach of duty of care, civil liability, civil litigation, commercial law, commercial leases, common law, communications law, company law, compensation, conciliation, consumer law, contract, conveyancing, copyright, corporate law, corporations law, costs, criminal law, criminal litigation, death and disability, debt recovery, defamation law, disability discrimination law, discrimination, dispute resolution, divorce, elder law, employment law, environmental law, equity, estate planning, ethics, family law, guardianship, harassment and workplace bullying, health law, human rights, immigration, industrial law, insolvency, intellectual property, labour law, land and environment court, land law, landlord and tenant, lawyer referral, lawyers, leases, licensing law, liquor law, litigation, local government, malpractice, media law, mediation, medical law, mortgages, motor vehicle law, negligence, occupational health and safety law, partnerships, planning law, powers of attorney, privacy law, pro bono, probate law, professional negligence, professional standards, property law, residential leases, revenue law, securities law, settlements, shipping law, social security, solicitors, sports law, succession, superannuation law, tax law, torts, total and permanent disablement, traffic law, transport law, wills, workplace law

Criminal Law, Sentencing

R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120

July 4, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 4 JULY 2014, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal delivered R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120 (4 July 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2014/120.html

The court increased the sentences imposed upon the defendant for offences including the manslaughter of Thomas Kelly.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, Negligence

Council of the Shire of Sutherland v Heyman [1985] HCA 41 | 4 July 1985

July 4, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 4 JULY 1985, the High Court of Australia delivered Council of the Shire of Sutherland v Heyman [1985] HCA 41; (1985) 157 CLR 424 (4 July 1985).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/41.html

The council was sued by a resident homeowner for the expenses associated with remedying damage caused to their house due to it being constructed on inadequate footings. The owner alleged that the council was negligent in that it failed in it’s duty of care to ensure that the dwelling was properly constructed in accordance with the plans they approved because it failed to inspect the foundations before they were covered up.

The court did not find the council to be negligent in this case. Nevertheless, the decision established the principle that a public authority is governed by the ordinary principles of the law of negligence, even if it is a repository of a statutory discretion.

The court held that in certain circumstances a government body could be negligent in failing to prevent harm where a reasonable reliance arises from the community’s dependence on the function being exercised with due care.

Per Mason J at 464:

“…there will be cases in which the plaintiff’s reasonable reliance will arise out of a general dependence on an authority’s performance of its function with due care, without the need for contributing conduct on the part of a defendant or action to his detriment on the part of a plaintiff. …The control of air traffic, the safety inspection of aircraft and the fighting of a fire…by a fire authority…may well be examples of this type of function. …Whether the inspection of motor vehicles for registration purposes could generate such a general reliance is a more complex question…”

Per Mason J at 469:

“The distinction between policy and operational factors is not easy to formulate, but the dividing line between them will be observed if we recognize that a public authority is under no duty of care in relation to decisions which involve or are dictated by financial, economic, social or political factors or constraints. Thus budgetary allocations and the constraints which they entail in terms of allocation of resources cannot be made the subject of a duty of care. But it may be otherwise when the courts are called upon to apply a standard of care to action or inaction that is merely the product of administrative direction, expert or professional opinion, technical standards or general standards of reasonableness.”

The “doctrine of general reliance” has since been rejected by the High Court: see Pyrenees Shire Council v Day; Eskimo Amber Pty Ltd v Pyrenees Shire Council (1998) 192 CLR 330.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Planning Law

15/47 Neridah St (accessed at 15 Oscar St), Chatswood NSW 2057

July 3, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 3 JULY 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Willoughby City Council v Chen [2014] NSWLEC 92.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172539

The court declared that the respondent failed to comply with a Brothel Closure order with respect to premises at 15/47 Neridah St (accessed at 15 Oscar St), Chatswood and ordered that she be restrained from using such premises as a brothel or for related sex uses.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088