The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria Inc. A0120851O
Do funds paid into court as security for costs pursuant to a consent order give rise to a security interest pursuant to s 12(1) of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA)? No, according to the Honourable Justice M Osborne. However, it may be that other forms of security for costs do.
In a recent decision, Justice Jackman of the Federal Court of Australia has criticised the practice of giving written evidence of a conversation in direct speech (whether or not prefaced by “words to the effect of”), when the witness only remembers the gist of it.
VCAT is bound by an earlier indistinguishable precedent of the Supreme Court, which held that proceedings brought in the Tribunal’s original jurisdiction are not subject to s 5(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act because the tribunal is not a “court of law” within the definition of “action”.
Is the fact that a party is a corporation incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) sufficient to bring a proceeding within federal jurisdiction, and thus to deprive VCAT of jurisdiction to hear that matter?
This note deals with a recent Federal Court decision in respect of freezing orders to prevent dissipation of assets in a subsidiary of a judgment debtor.
Practice and procedure – application for dismissal of proceedings – failure to prosecute proceedings with due diligence – consideration of the overarching purpose in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act – application by corporate applicant to dispense with requirement to be legally represented – termination of four successive lawyers
This piece looks at the question raised by Dental Corporation’s application for special leave to appeal to the High Court: did the Federal Court have jurisdiction to make a declaration about the application of subsection 12(3) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)?
Allsop CJ has given helpful tips to practitioners tasked with the job of drafting a concise statement in a banking case concerning statutory claims having an equitable character.
The rules of most Victorian courts permit a party, in certain circumstances, to obtain discovery of material prior to commencing proceedings. Like many rule-based tests, there can be some confusion about the requirements as well as the discretionary factors involved in obtaining preliminary discovery. The Supreme Court in a recent appeal decision has shed some light.
A recent decision by Vickery J addresses the practice of “piggybacking” by a plaintiff in the proportionate liability context. The decision means that a plaintiff bringing a claim against a concurrent wrongdoer joined by the defendant must properly plead a cause of action against them; it may be insufficient simply to make reference to the first defendant’s pleading.
Abstract: A December 2016 decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria and a January 2017 practice note on the use of technology in the Court have shown the Court’s acceptance of technology assisted review as an appropriate method of discovery in litigation involving a large amount of electronically stored information.
Paul Hayes will be presenting a CPD seminar on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 5.15pm in the McPhee Room on level 1 of Owen Dixon East. The seminar is entitled: “The Harman Obligation: Policy, Procedure and Punishment”. Further details can be obtained from the Bar Office.
The Legal Services Council’s inaugural guideline and direction deals with lawyers’ costs disclosure obligations. Simply put, we are required to provides single figure estimates of our costs. But even the guideline and direction seems to recognize that things will rarely be that simple…
Civil procedure – non-party costs order against a party’s solicitor – solicitor also a director of client company – conflict of interest – LIV’s Professional Conduct and Practice Rules