The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria Inc. A0120851O
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.
Is it necessary for a plaintiff to establish that the nature of the defendant’s breach made it impossible to prove expectation damages before it can be awarded reliance damages? No, according to the New South Wales Court of Appeal in 123 259 932 Pty Limited v Cessnock City Council [2023] NSWCA 21.
This article provides a brief overview of the case law arising from claims under business interruption insurance policies for COVID-19 related losses. It also suggests some broader lessons that may be taken from the litigation.
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”.
In Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26, the High Court provided much-needed clarification on the threshold of materiality for the establishment of jurisdictional error.
The High Court has held that a statutory authority responsible for maintaining electrical infrastructure owed a duty of care in relation to property damage and personal injury caused by infrastructure that was affixed to private property. This decision has implications for statutory authorities who are responsible for maintaining infrastructure.
VCAT has found that the time limits in s 5(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act do not apply to claims under s 157 of the Water Act.
The Supreme Court of Victoria recently considered whether a parliamentary media accreditation decision was subject to judicial review. In deciding that it was not, the Court relied on the parliamentary privilege to control access to the parliamentary precincts, which is within the “exclusive cognisance” of Parliament.
The Supreme Court has overturned a controversial award of damages by VCAT in a sexual harassment matter. In doing so, it has provided guidance on whether an award’s ‘manifest inadequacy’ is a ‘question of law’ and therefore, a basis for appeal, under s 148(1) of the VCAT Act.
An overview of recent legislation and case law which has impacted the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and Australian Consumer Law civil penalty regimes.
In Metal Manufactures Pty Ltd v Morton, the High Court has confirmed that set-off under s 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is not available as a defence to a liquidator’s claim to recover an unfair preference.
The High Court has unanimously found that Pt 5.7B of the Corporations Act does not incorporate the “peak indebtedness rule” and has provided guidance as to the proper approach to assessing a “continuing business relationship” for the purposes of s 588FA(3)(a).
When can a statutory authority owe a common law duty of care? What are the key considerations? The High Court’s decision in Electricity Networks Corporation v Herridge Parties addresses these issues and is summarised in this note.
In Built Qld, the Queensland Court of Appeal considered a common type of construction dispute arising under a modified version of AS 4902-2000. It is an illustration of typical issues in cases of this kind.
The claim was for variations, extensions of time and delay damages.