New
changes to the Oaths Act 1900 (NSW) (“the Act”) took effect as and from 30 April 2012, with the insertion of new sections 34 and 35 into the Act pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Identification Legislation Amendment Act 2011.
As technology continues to develop, so must the law and its legal institutions adapt to the challenges and opportunities that flow from technological changes. Australian courts and more specifically the Australian Federal Courts, have attempted to take advantage of the benefits in efficiency and case handling that developments in technology have had to offer with the ability to electronically lodge documents (with the Federal Court’s “eLodgment”) and the creation of electronic virtual courtrooms (the “eCourtroom”).
Reliance upon circumstantial evidence is common practice for insurance companies when alleging an insured was responsible for causing a fire that damaged an insured’s premises. In many cases where insurance companies allege fraud, it can be complex and difficult to prove that the insured had a motive to start the fire, although, evidence suggests that an insured often has a conceivable motive.
Reasonable foreseeability is a test used by the Courts to determine the extent to which a wrongdoer is responsible for damage caused by their wrong. It is not a test for causation, but marks the limits in which a wrongdoer will not be held responsible for the damage caused by their wrongful act.
The issuing of a Creditor’s Statutory Demand for the payment of Debt (Statutory Demand) can be a powerful and readily accessible means of applying pressure on a company which is either unable, or clearly reticent, in paying its debts. For companies that find themselves in receipt of such demands, their options for challenging the demand may seem limited to commencing litigation to set aside.
The New South Wales Local Court Practice Rule Civil 1 of 2011 brought the “Single Expert Direction” to the Local Court’s General Division. Unless parties could demonstrate otherwise, a “Single Expert Direction” was to be made in every matter where the parties disputed the quantum of damage claimed.
Reform of Australian Consumer Credit Laws by Federal Parliament in 2009 resulted in sweeping changes to the Australia consumer credit landscape, heralding the introduction of a harmonised and uniform regulatory framework where there previously existed only an ostensibly uniform Consumer Credit Code under the auspices of which operated State and Territory based codes.
In Paul Wynne Jones v Sue Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 (“Kaney”) the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has abolished expert immunity. Previously it had long been established that expert witnesses had a limited form of immunity from proceedings for negligence and breach of contract.
On 22 August 2011 the High Court delivered its decision in HIH Claims Support Ltd v Insurance Australia Limited. This decision impacts on insurers and their ability to seek contribution from other insurers where policies covering risks of the same nature are operating at the same time.
Legislation at federal level has recently been enacted, introducing pre-litigation requirements must be adhered to by parties prior to commencing proceedings in the Federal Court.
In February 2011, Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings (Cotswold) became the first English company to be convicted of corporate manslaughter. The conviction heralds the first successful application of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (the Act) in England and will likely be a catalyst for further Australian discussion.
Ensuring that a dispute is determined by a decision- maker who will make an impartial and unbiased finding is crucial to the proper administration of justice.
In Rudyard Kipling Thorpe (as Litigation Friend to Mrs Leonie Leanthie Hill) v Fellowes Solicitors LLP [2011] EWHC 61 (QB), the High Court of England and Wales considered, inter alia, whether it was appropriate that a party adduce further expert (or lay) evidence outside case management orders.
The short-term future sees our Melbourne practice open its doors shortly. In the long-term, we hope to become a national commercial litigation practice with the same personal commitment to the core values that we hold today.
It is important for directors who draft and/or authorise market announcements to verify accuracy and validity, otherwise they may be personally liable.
In a landmark decision handed down by the Federal Court of Australia, it was held that internet service providers (ISPs) were not liable for copyright infringements of their users with particular reference to films and television programs.
It is an oft-lamented trend of our times that people seldom accept responsibility for their actions, but increasingly seek to attribute blame to others for their mistakes.
Should an ISP be liable for its customer’s copyright infringement? This is the central issue at hand in the landmark case between the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) and iiNet.
In 1981, Sydney Water operating under its statutory authority installed a water main into an underground sandy trench running parallel to Edmondson Avenue, Austral NSW (a semi-rural area).
In Peter Smythe v Vincent Thomas [2007] NSWSC 844, an eBay user placed an advertisement to sell a rare aircraft, with bidding starting at a minimum of $150,000.00.
William Roberts have commissioned an emissions report from the Carbon Reduction Institute to investigate our impact on the environment and to determine measures that could be taken to reduce this impact.
In Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd ("Hollis' Case"), Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ remarked that "[t]he nature of employment relationships has changed greatly since the age of feudal status".
In the case of Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Limited ("Koompahtoo"), the High Court stated that there are three situations in which a party may terminate a contract at common law.
