Tag Archives: SOLICITORS

LAW FIRM, Property Law

Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott [1946] HCA 46 | 25 November 1946

ON 25 NOVEMBER 1946, the High Court of Australia delivered Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott [1946] HCA 46; (1946) 74 CLR 204 (25 November 1946)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1946/46.html

Mr Elliott used of Penfolds’ empty wine bottles to carry other wine.

Dixon J (at 229) said:

“But nothing in the course pursued by the respondent in receiving and filling bottles and returning them could possibly amount to the tort of conversion. The essence of conversion is a dealing with a chattel in a manner repugnant to the immediate right of possession of the person who has the property or special property in the chattel. It may take the form of a disposal of the goods by way of sale, or pledge or other intended transfer of an interest followed by delivery, of the destruction or change of the nature or character of the thing, as for example, pouring water into wine or cutting the seals from a deed, or of an appropriation evidenced by refusal to deliver or other denial of title. But damage to the chattel is not conversion, nor is use, nor is a transfer of possession otherwise than for the purpose of affecting the immediate right to possession, nor is it always conversion to lose the goods beyond hope of recovery. An intent to do that which would deprive “the true owner” of his immediate right to possession or impair it may be said to form the essential ground of the tort.”

The tort of conversion generally concerns a defendant’s intentional dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with or repugnant to the plaintiff’s ownership of the goods: per Latham CJ at 217 – 221, Dixon J (Starke J agreeing) at 228 – 230, McTiernan J at 234 – 235 and Williams J at 239 – 244.

An act repugnant or inconsistent to the terms of the bailment, or consistent only to treat the goods as his or her own, terminates the bailment resulting in possession revesting to the owner who can sue the bailee in trover: per Latham CJ at pp 214 and 217-8, Dixon J at p 227, McTiernan J at p 233 and Williams J at pp 241-2.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Employment Law, Meaning of "pay", Meaning of "salary"

Registered Clubs Association of NSW v Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers’ Union, NSW Branch [2000] NSWIRComm 262

ON 14 DECEMBER 2000, the NSW Industrial Relations Commission delivered Registered Clubs Association of NSW v Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers’ Union, NSW Branch [2000] NSWIRComm 262.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWIRComm/2000/262.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Legal Aid

Legal help iPhone app

Legal Aid NSW had developed a new iPhone app.

Legal Aid says that the app will allow its users to access a range of useful information including:

The nearest Legal Aid service.

Videos about the law.

Workshops bookings.

Factsheets and other resources.

Legal aid grants.

For more information, visit www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM

Calling for expressions of interest

At Legal Helpdesk Lawyers, we are always looking for reliable lawyers with suitable expertise to receive our customer referrals.

If you share our values and would like to join our network, please send your expression of interest to Peter O’Grady at peter@legalhelpdesklawyers.com.au. Please include all information and material you would like us to consider, including particulars of your firm, experience, expertise and referees.

It is essential that the lawyers in our network meet high standards of expertise, reliability and peer respect. Our network includes some of the best Solicitors and Barristers in Sydney.

 

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Planning Law

Parramatta City Council v Pestell [1972] HCA 59 | 24 November 1972

Parramatta City Council v Pestell [1972] HCA 59; (1972) 128 CLR 305 (24 November 1972).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/128clr305.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Divorce, Family Law, LAW FIRM

Salacup and Salacup [1993] FamCA 120 | 23 November 1993

Salacup and Salacup [1993] FamCA 120; (1993) FLC 92-431 (23 November 1993).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/1993/120.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, LAW FIRM

Crampton v R [2000] HCA 60 | 23 November 2000

ON 23 NOVEMBER 2000, the High Court of Australia delivered Crampton v R [2000] HCA 60; 206 CLR 161; 176 ALR 369; 75 ALJR 133 (23 November 2000).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2000/60.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Appeals, LAW FIRM, Personal Injury, Torts

Bugden v Rogers (1993) Aust Tort Reports 81-246 | 23 November 2003

ON 23 NOVEMBER 1993, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Bugden v Rogers (1993) Aust Tort Reports 81-246.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Occupiers Liability, Personal Injury

Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61 | 23 November 2000

ON 23 NOVEMBER 2000, the High Court of Australia delivered Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61; 205 CLR 254; 176 ALR 411; 75 ALJR 164 (23 November 2000).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2000/61.html

 

The High Court held that the owner/occupier of a shopping centre did not breach its duty of care to an employee of a tenant who was attacked in the unlit shopping centre car park.

Per Gleeson CJ:

“That an occupier of land owes a duty of care to a person lawfully upon the land is not in doubt. It is clear that the appellant owed the first respondent a duty in relation to the physical state and condition of the car park. The point of debate concerns whether the appellant owed a duty of a kind relevant to the harm which befell the first respondent. That was variously described in argument as a question concerning the nature, or scope, or measure of the duty. The nature of the harm suffered was physical injury inflicted by a third party over whose actions the appellant had no control. Thus, any relevant duty must have been a duty related to the security of the first respondent. It must have been a duty, as occupier of land, to take reasonable care to protect people in the position of the first respondent from conduct, including criminal conduct, of third parties.” at [17]

“The most that can be said of the present case is that the risk of harm of the kind suffered by the first respondent was foreseeable in the sense that it was real and not far-fetched. The existence of such a risk is not sufficient to impose upon an occupier of land a duty to take reasonable care to prevent harm, to somebody lawfully upon the land, from the criminal behaviour of a third party who comes onto the land. To impose such a burden upon occupiers of land, in the absence of contract or some special relationship …, would be contrary to principle; a principle which is based upon considerations of practicality and fairness. The principle cannot be negated by listing all the particular facts of the case and applying to the sum of them the question-begging characterisation that they are special. … Most of the facts said to make the case special are, upon analysis, no more than evidence that the risk of harm to the first respondent was foreseeable.” [at 35]

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, Evidence, LAW FIRM, Medical negligence, Negligence, Personal Injury

Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58 | 19 November 1992

ON 19 NOVEMBER 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175 CLR 479 (19 November 1992).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/58.html

Dr Rogers had performed surgery on Whitaker’s right eye, which was almost blind. The surgery should have restored her sight, but instead became blind in the left eye when she suffered sympathetic opthalmia. Whilst the risk was remote, Dr Rogers was held to be negligent in failing to warn Whitaker of the risk.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088