Tag Archives: Sydney Law Firm

CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9

ON 11 MARCH 2015 the High Court of Australia delivered CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9 (11 March 2015).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/9.html

The High Court allowed an appeal against a decision of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal to impose a custodial sentence, remitting the matter to the CCA for re-determination.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v Fletcher: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v Fletcher [2015] HCA 8

ON 11 MARCH 2015, the High Court of Australia delivered Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v Fletcher: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v Fletcher [2015] HCA 8 (11 March 2015).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/8.html

The High Court held that rule 36.16(2)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) could not be utilised to vary the time for the bringing of proceedings for orders with respect to voidable transactions under s588FF(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

<p style=”text-align:center;”><a href=”http://legalhelpdesklawyers.com.au”><img class=”alignnone wp-image-8046″ src=”https://legalhelpdesklawyers.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/button-logo-41.jpg?w=150&#8243; alt=”Lawyers” width=”50″ height=”50″ /></a></p>
<p style=”text-align:center;”>1300 00 2088</p>

Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Limited v Fletcher [2015] HCA 10

ON 11 MARCH 2015 the High Court of Australia delivered Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Limited v Fletcher [2015] HCA 10 (11 March 2015).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/10.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluna [1987] HCA 7 | 10 March 1987

NEGLIGENCE. OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY. INJURY. ON THIS DAY IN 1987, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7; (1987) 162 CLR 479 (10 March 1987).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/7.html

An occupier of premises owes a duty of care under the ordinary principles of negligence to take reasonable care for the safety of a person who enters the premises, irrespective of whether they are an invitee, trespasser or licensee.

Per Mason, Wilson, Deane and Dawson JJ at 488:

“We think it is wholly consistent with the trend of recent decisions of this Court touching the law of negligence, both in this area of an occupier’s liability towards entrants on his land and in the areas which were the subject of consideration in San Sebastian Pty. Ltd. v. Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 [1986] HCA 68; (1986) 68 ALR 161 and Cook v. Cook [1986] HCA 73; (1986) 61 ALJR 25; 68 ALR 353, to simplify the operation of the law to accord with the statement of Deane J. in Hackshaw, at pp.662-663:

‘… it is not necessary, in an action in
negligence against an occupier, to go through the
procedure of considering whether either one or
other or both of a special duty qua occupier and an
ordinary duty of care was owed. All that is
necessary is to determine whether, in all the
relevant circumstances including the fact of the
defendant’s occupation of premises and the manner
of the plaintiff’s entry upon them, the defendant
owed a duty of care under the ordinary principles
of negligence to the plaintiff. A prerequisite of
any such duty is that there be the necessary degree
of proximity of relationship. The touchstone of
its existence is that there be reasonable
foreseeability of a real risk of injury to the
visitor or to the class of person of which the
visitor is a member. The measure of the discharge
of the duty is what a reasonable man would, in the
circumstances, do by way of response to the
foreseeable risk.'”

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8 | 3 March 1959

ON THIS DAY IN 1959, the High Court delivered Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 (3 March 1959).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1959/8.html

The unexplained failure of a party to use certain evidence may, in some circumstances, result in an inference that the evidence would not have assisted their case.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088