Tag Archives: SYDNEY LAWYERS

Commercial Law, Consumer Law, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Product liability, Trade Practices

Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant [1933] HCA 35 | 18 August 1933

August 18, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 18 AUGUST 1933, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant [1933] HCA 35; (1933) 50 CLR 387 (18 August 1933).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1933/35.html

Per Dixon J at 418:

“The condition that goods are of merchantable quality requires that they should be in such an actual state that a buyer fully acquainted with the facts and, therefore, knowing what hidden defects exist and not being limited to their apparent condition would buy them without abatement of the price obtainable for such goods if in reasonably sound order and condition and without special terms.”

1300 00 2088

Appeals, LAW FIRM

House v R [1936] HCA 40 | 17 August 1936

August 17, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 17 AUGUST 1936, the High Court of Australia delivered House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 (17 August 1936).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1936/40.html

The exercise of a judge’s discretion may be reviewed on appeal if the judge:

Acts on a wrong principle.
Allows him or herself to be guided by extraneous or irrelevant matters.
Mistakes the facts.
Fails to take into account a material consideration.

If there is no identifiable error, but if upon the facts the exercise of discretion is “unreasonable or plainly unjust”, an appeal court may infer that the judge has failed to properly exercise his or her discretion on the grounds that a substantial wrong has occurred.

Peter Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ:
“The manner in which an appeal against an exercise of discretion should be determined is governed by established principles. It is not enough that the judges composing the appellate court consider that, if they had been in the position of the primary judge, they would have taken a different course. It must appear that some error has been made in exercising the discretion. If the judge acts upon a wrong principle, if he allows extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect him, if he mistakes the facts, if he does not take into account some material consideration, then his determination should be reviewed and the appellate court may exercise its own discretion in substitution for his if it has the materials for doing so. It may not appear how the primary judge has reached the result embodied in his order, but, if upon the facts it is unreasonable or plainly unjust, the appellate court may infer that in some way there has been a failure properly to exercise the discretion which the law reposes in the court of first instance. In such a case, although the nature of the error may not be discoverable, the exercise of the discretion is reviewed on the ground that a substantial wrong has in fact occurred.”

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Criminal Law, LAW FIRM

77.60% of all criminal charges are proven in NSW

August 16, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

The proportion of charges proven in NSW Criminal Courts in 2013 were as follows:

Assault 60.10%
Sexual assault 46.50%
Robbery 64.90%
Unlawful entry with intent/burglary, break and enter 67.20%
Theft (except motor vehicles) 78.90%
Murder 64.60%
Attempted murder 33.30%
Manslaughter and driving causing death 63%
Other acts intended to cause injury 62.50%
Non-assaultive sexual offences 70.70%
Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons 52.70%
Abduction and kidnapping 64.90%
Deprivation of liberty/false imprisonment 30.80%
Harassment and threatening behaviour 66.30%
Blackmail and extortion 29.40%
Motor vehicle theft and related offences 67.90%
Receive or handle proceeds of crime 58.70%
Illegal use of property (except motor vehicles) 50.00%
Obtain benefit by deception 65.20%
Forgery and counterfeiting 72.30%
Deceptive business/government practices 67.80%
Other fraud and deception offences 54.00%
Import or export illicit drugs 77.40%
Deal or traffic in illicit drugs 63.20%
Manufacture or cultivate illicit drugs 92.60%
Possess and/or use illicit drugs 88.40%
Other illicit drug offences 83.80%
Prohibited weapons/explosives offences 69.80%
Regulated weapons/explosives offences 76.00%
Property damage 77.50%
Environmental pollution 73.30%
Disorderly conduct 65.40%
Regulated public order offences 79.00%
Offensive conduct 80.50%
Driver Licence offences 91.80%
Vehicle registration and roadworthiness offences 94.00%
Regulatory driving offences 96.10%
Breach of custodial order offences 97.90%
Breach of community-based order 96.20%
Breach of violence and non-violence orders 76.40%
Offences against government operations 82.30%
Offences against government security 60.90%
Offences against justice procedures 76.60%
Defamation, libel and privacy offences 60.00%
Public health and safety offences 76.50%
Commercial/industry/financial regulation 78.80%
Other miscellaneous offences 58.20%
Total All Offences 77.60%

Source: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research

1300 00 2088

Corporations Law, LAW FIRM

Macquarie Equities Limited to write to current and former clients

August 15, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 15 AUGUST 2014 Macquarie Equities Limited (MEL) were required to write to current and former clients alerting them of the possibility of remediation for flawed financial advice. The obligation arose from an Enforceable Undertaking imposed by ASIC following concerns arising from an investigation of MEL’s financial advisor network, Macquarie Private Wealth.

The process of remediation is intended to allow the clients to raise any concerns they have with MEL about poor financial advice they may have received and the losses for which they may wish to be compensated.

1300 00 2088

Costs, LAW FIRM, Offers of Compromise

Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [No 2] [2014] HCA 31

August 15, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [No 2] [2014] HCA 31 (15 August 2014).

On 7 May 2014, the appellants successfully appealed a decision of the Victorian Court of appeal. The High Court held that the first appellant was entitled to an equitable lien over settlement funds from litigation against the respondent, a secured creditor, and receivers appointed by the respondent. Accordingly, orders were made on 7 May setting aside the Court of Appeal’s orders and ordering that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs.

The applicant sought the variation of the costs order so that an order be made for costs on an indemnity basis on the grounds that the respondent unreasonably refused an offer containing an accommodation in its favour during the Court of Appeal proceedings.

The Court held that the respondent unreasonably refused the applicants’ offer and should therefore be liable for indemnity costs of the Court of Appeal proceedings and that the costs of the High Court proceedings remain on the usual basis as there was no offer for the respondent to accept at the time of the High Court proceedings.

The High Court therefore varied its earlier orders to the effect that the respondent pay the costs of the Court of Appeal proceedings on an indemnity basis.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/31.html

1300 00 2088

Injunctions, LAW FIRM, Mortgage

Goater v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] NSWCA 265

August 15, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

Goater v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] NSWCA 265 (15 August 2014).

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM

Bar News – August 2014

August 15, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

Bar News – August 2014

1300 00 2088

Administrative Law, LAW FIRM, Migration Law

WACO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 171 | 15 August 2003

August 15, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

WACO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 171 (15 August 2003).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2003/171.html

The applicant was a citizen of Iran who applied for a protection visa. Evidence upon which he relied included two letters purporting to show an association with a reformist cleric named Ayatollah Sayed Mohammad Shirazi.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Indigenous Affairs not to grant the applicant’s visa, finding that it was not satisfied that he had a genuine fear of persecution and there was not a real chance that he would face persecution upon his return to Iran. The Tribunal concluded that several parts of the applicant’s evidence were implausible and that he was not a credible witness. Specifically, the Tribunal doubted the genuineness of the letters concerning the Ayatollah Shirazi.

It was common ground that the Tribunal did not at any time indicate to the applicant of its doubts about the letters, nor did it give the applicant an opportunity to put his case as to why they were genuine.

The applicant brought proceedings in the Federal Court seeking prerogative writs against the Tribunal’s decision. Those proceedings were dismissed by French J.

The Full Court of the Federal Court allowed an appeal, setting aside French J’s orders, issuing a writ of certiorari and remitting the matter back to the Tribunal. The Full Court held that procedural fairness imposes a duty on the Tribunal to ensure that an applicant is made aware of the case against him or her and given an opportunity to be heard in response to the issues to be decided.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Animal rights, LAW FIRM, Law reform, Legislation

Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 (UK)| 15 August 1876

August 15, 2014 Legal Helpdesk Lawyers

ON 15 AUGUST 1876, the UK Parliament enacted the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.

The Act amended the Cruelty to Animals Act 1849, extending it to animal experiments by licensing and regulating scientific animal experiments and prohibiting such experiments that are painful.

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088