Search

The article addresses the onset of workplace bullying in Australia started primarily after the election of Julia Gillard, the first female Australian Prime Minister. Topics discussed include laws made for the regulation of workplace bullying under the jurisdiction of the Fair Work Commission (FWC), increasing cases of workplace bullying in the corporate law firms and the decision of the Australia Court of Appeal on the lawsuit Brown v. Maurice Blackburn Cashman.

The article focuses on decisions of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and courts in New Zealand on the cases regarding bad faith. Topics discussed include importance of case law in resolving the disputes related to fraud, judicial opinion of the Court of Appeal of Australia on the cases related to bad faith and laws for the regulation of trademark registration and its related cases.

The article discusses judicial consideration of endeavours clauses related to construction contracts in Australia and Singapore. Topics discussed include using endeavours clauses if obligor not giving an absolute undertaking to the performance of an obligation, interpreting a clause in gas supply agreement (GSA) between Verve Energy, a west Australian state enterprise and Woodside Energy Ltd., and Singapore Court of Appeal case KS Energy Services Ltd v BR Energy (M) Sdn Bhd.

The article focuses on various aspects responsible for making unjust enrichment of contracts. Topics discussed include orders of the court in the cases related to unjust contracts under the Contracts Review Act 1980, failure of the bank in complying its own lending guidelines and the rights of the borrowers to be entitled for relief under the act. It further discusses the judicial opinions of the Australian Court of Appeal on the unjust contracts.

The article offers information about the judgments on the court cases Akiba v. Commonwealth and Karpany v. Dietman that were executed in the High Court of Australia. Topics discussed include laws related to the successful regulation of fisheries, laws prohibiting the commercial use of marine resources and requirement of license for hunting. It further discusses the need of licenses for carrying out the commercial activities and trade.

The article discusses several Court cases including Informer v. A Chief Constable, Spencer v. General Osteopathic Council, and Appleyard v. Wewelwala prosecuted in the Australian Court of Appeal. In Chief Constable case highlights money laundering issues under criminal law. Spencer case deals with medical misconduct by surgeon Spencer over his treatment as an osteopath. In Wewelwala case, the judge refused the defendant's application of bankruptcy order.

The article addresses to the fundamental aspects of the defense of contributory negligence under the decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia in Town of Port Hedland v. Reece William Hodder by next friend Elaine Georgina Hodder (No. 2). It informs that the court analyzed whether the disabled claimant has been guilty of contributory negligence and held that hodder contributed negligence and his claim for damages was reduced by 10 percent.

The article discusses the Australia Court of Appeal case Andrews vs. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group and mentions the implication of this decision for international construction contracting. It mentions that the court decision changed the law in Australia regarding fees and charges that can categorized as penal and unenforceable.

The article focuses on the decision of the Australian Court of Appeal on several court cases regarding the right of a property managers on the premises it manages. The author states that the decision will have significant development on property managers and their professional indemnity insurers. She notes that a managing agent ensures that the premises it manages are safe for use.

The article presents summaries of several criminal law-related cases in New Zealand (NZ) and Australia as of February 2011, including legal matters dealing with topics such as the admissibility of automobile searches, juror incapacity, and visual identification under Section 45 of the NZ Evidence Act 2006. In the Australian Court of Appeal case Haskins v. The Commonwealth, the court deals with military detention and the nation's Defence Force Discipline Act 1982.

High Court's decision in Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531 follows the 2009 decision in International Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319; both decisions breathing new life into the principle from Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51. Whereas the 2009 case involved a relatively straightforward application of Kable (as developed and re-articulated in subsequent cases), the decision in Kirk is far-reaching. The High Court has effectively extended the reach of ch III of the Constitution, holding that the supervisory jurisdiction of the state supreme courts is a defining characteristic of those courts and cannot therefore be removed. The implications of the decision will be played out over time, in cases where jurisdictional error is alleged and where state privative clauses come under closer scrutiny by the courts. However, the wider significance of Kirk lies in the High Court's defiant stance with respect to preserving its own supervisory role in reviewing the fundamental errors of inferior courts and tribunals. In this respect, the impact of Kirk may not be completely felt until the matters which the Court was ultimately able to sidestep in Kirk, but which absorbed the parties and interveners in their submissions, arise for determination in a future case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The High Court has reserved judgment in an appeal against the decision of the Western Australian Court of Appeal in Miller v Miller (2009) 54 MVR 367. This appeal calls into question the defence of joint illegal enterprise, which is an answer to liability in the tort of negligence. It is with this appeal that this article is concerned. Two main arguments are presented. The first is that the defence is framed in a highly unsatisfactory way. It is governed by nonsensical rules, many of which are inconsistent with fundamental principles of tort law. Accordingly, should the High Court retain the defence, it is submitted that it should reformulate it so that it blends in with the legal environment in which it resides. The second and more fundamental argument is that the defence should be abolished. It is a stain on the law of torts. Not only are there no convincing arguments in support of it, but there are powerful reasons against its existence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a court case wherein the respondent, who had been a receiver of a company involved in alleged fraud, claimed that he was entitled to a U.S. dollar account held in the name of European Bank Ltd. in Australia. The High Court rejected the respondent's application for special leave. The Court of Appeal upheld the respondent's appeal against the assessment of the appellant's damages in an amount of 800,000 dollars.

The article discusses several court cases in Australia. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 forbids a person from pursuing a course of conduct which leads to harassment. The Court of Appeal found out that the estoppel is only effective if it operates to induce the developer. A "virtual assignment" agreement with a third party is acceded by a tenant in which the benefits and burdens of the lease will be transmitted to the assignee, but not the property right being a leasehold estate.

The article discusses a court case wherein the respondents looked for the immediate enforcement of the order for the costs in the High Court of Australia. The costs of proceedings in the Court of Appeal holds that there was no reason to defer enforcement, there is no appropriate foreclose consideration by the Court of Appeal in respect of the procedural steps and even if the respondents could establish a federal appeal, it is not appropriate to order that the burden of the cost should lie.

This article discusses the issue of winding-up in companies based on court cases heard in the Australian Court of Appeal. The decision that provisions in the Confiscation Act 1997 are operationally inconsistent with provisions in the Corporations Act 2001 was sustained in the Tat Sang Loo v. Director of Public Prosecutions in 2005. This issue originated from the guilty plea of Loo to the violation of Victorian fisheries legislation.

The article mentions the Australian High Court's decision in the Stewart v. Atco Controls Pty. Ltd. on May 7, 2014 wherein a liquidator was entitled to an equitable lien over a fund constituted by a settlement sum including costs and expenses incurred in litigation. Topics discussed include role of debenture-holders as creditors with a right to property for the purpose of paying their debts, decision of the Court of Appeal in the case and observations of the High Court on a liquidator's duty.

The article discusses the Australian High Court case of Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v. Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd, in context to an unspecified judgment for substitute orders by the Court. The Court ordered parties to file a joint minute that encompassed an order substituting an amount for which judgment should have been registered by the Australian Court of Appeal. It informs that the Court of Appeal had applied the rate of interest for payment as per the New South Wales Civil Procedure Act.

The article focuses on the judgment in the court case Miwa Pty Ltd V Siantan Properties Pte Ltd, concerning the fit-out payment. It states that the plaintiff and the defendant signed a lease as per which the plaintiff has to pay a fit-out payment of 45,000 U.S. dollars to the defendant which it refused, so the defendant began deducting installments of the payment from its rent payments. Australian Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to decide on defendant's entitlement on payment deduction.

The article describes the case McKenzie v McKenzie where an Australian barrister assisted a husband in a long English divorce case. The Court of Appeal decided to return the case for a partial retrial and held that every party had the right to have a friend present in court beside him or her to assist by prompting, taking notes and quietly giving advice. The English Practice Guidance covers the right to reasonable assistance and what McKenzie friends may do and may not do during the trial.

The article discusses a court case Owners of East Fremantle Shopping Centre West Strata Plan 8618 v. Action Supermarkets Pty Ltd., wherein the question surrounds on the right to park in easement in Australia. The plaintiff was granted with rights to the easement in relevant to Strata plan and demands to remove the right to pass and repass given to the various people. However, the Western Australian Court of Appeal explains that issue of right surrounds matter of construction.

The article focuses on the commonalities of in-court demonstrations and experiments in which the author evaluates the judgment in "Evans v The Queen" in 2007. The Court of Criminal Appeal in Australia has implied that in the course of the demonstration, the accused had been required to put on a pair of sunglasses owned by the prosecutor which were not in evidence. It was held that this should not have been done and should exercise extreme care.

The article discusses the Court case Segal v. Barel prosecuted in the New South Wales Court of Appeal in order to define corresponding provisions of partition or sale of a co-owner's land. It mentions that co-owners of land have right to approach the court for land partition or put it to trustees for sale when they want to cease their partnership. In this case, the judge stated that sale is preferred remedy and also more beneficial to order partition.

The article focuses on the Australian court case Dhjpm Pty Ltd V Blackthorn Resources Ltd in which the applicant sued for equitable compensation on the ground of an equitable estoppel principle. It was held by the court that the appellant had established the first five elements outlined by Judge Brennan in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher. It informs that Meagher JA, court of appeal lawyer, found the appeal inappropriate to be awarded equitable compensation.

The article discusses the court case Clarence House Ltd. v. National Westminster Bank PLC in Australia. The English Court of Appeal has held that a virtual assignment, a contractual arrangement between a tenant and a third party, did not breach a leasehold covenant against assigning or parting with possession. The court ruled that the tenant had not parted with possession and had not assigned the lease.

The article discusses a court case wherein the Stone and Rolls Ltd. sued its auditors, including Moore Stephens, for their failure to determine fraudulent action. The House of Lords supported the relevance of the ex turpi causa non oritur action and public policy principles initially resolved by the jurists at the Australian Court of Appeal. However, the court's dissentient jurists stated that the lawsuit for negligence filed against the defendants was incompetent.