tttttttttt

Catchwords: OCCUPATIONS – Legal practitioners – Solicitors – Professional negligence – Advising client – Whether solicitor settled motor accident insurance claim prematurely and at an undervalue – Whether solicitor entitled to rely on Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5O – Whether causation of loss established – Appeal dismissed NEGLIGENCE – Breach – Standard of care – Professional negligence – Whether solicitor acted in a manner widely accepted in Australia by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice – Expert opinion adduced not determinative merely because not challenged on ground of irrationality – Where solicitor gave clear and repeated advice discouraging premature settlement at undervalue despite client’s perilous financial position and desire for quick settlement – Where early settlement prudent given risk of future disclosure of information adverse to claim – Where accepted offer far from so unreasonable as to warrant warning against acceptance – No breach of duty of care NEGLIGENCE – Causation – Factual causation – Whether client would have accepted offer even if given proper advice – Competing expert opinions – Where accepted offer was slightly above mid-range of potential outcomes – Where client in precarious financial position – Where clear willingness to settle – Where risk of future disclosure of information adverse to claim – Causation not established ...

Orders: (1) Dispense with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.14 with respect to the commencement and carrying on by the applicant of his application for leave to appeal. (2) Grant leave to appeal from the consent orders made on 28 October 2020. (3) Dispense with the need for the applicant to file any notice of appeal and allow the appeal. (4) Set aside the orders made on 28 October 2020 except for order 7. (5) Remit the summons to the Common Law Division to be reheard, and direct that at the...

Catchwords: WORKERS COMPENSATION – medical assessment – appeal from approved medical specialist to Appeal Panel – whether second appeal to Appeal Panel available on ground of deterioration – whether application for further appeal should have been treated as application for reconsideration, or whether notice to applicant should have been given, before application dismissed APPEALS – consideration of nature of appeals from approved medical specialist to Appeal Panel – consideration of nature of appeals from Associate Judge to Court of Appeal ...

Catchwords: NATIVE TITLE – application for leave to appeal against interlocutory judgment rejecting an application to strike out the State’s Response to the Statement of Facts and Matters which the Applicants sought to have admitted – whether the judgment attended by sufficient doubt to warrant the attention of the Full Court – whether, assuming the judgment to be wrong, the Applicants would suffer substantial injustice by a refusal of leave – application for leave to appeal dismissed by the majority – minority would grant leave but dismiss the appeal. ...

Catchwords: COSTS - determination of costs in appeal where appeal allowed and matter remitted for re-hearing - whether costs discretion enlivened for Court to make costs order against respondents under Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) - whether defence of appeal by respondents unreasonable - whether costs certificate should be granted to appellant and second and third respondents pursuant to s 8 of Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) - no costs order made against respondents - appellant granted costs certificate ...

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – costs – whether costs should be paid on an indemnity basis following rejection of offer of settlement – where offer of settlement made on without prejudice except as to costs basis – where offer not mention seeking indemnity costs if rejected – whether offer in accordance with Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93 – whether rejection of offer was imprudent or unreasonable ...

Catchwords: MIGRATION – judicial review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal holding that it did not have jurisdiction to review decision not to revoke visa cancellation decision under s 501CA(4) of Migration Act 1993 (Cth) – where representations were not “received” by Minister within 28 days under r 2.55 of Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – where Stewart v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 196 held “made representations” means “dispatched” – whether Stewart “plainly wrong” – consideration of “plainly wrong” where issue concerns matter of statutory construction by recent Full Court – Stewart not plainly wrong – where notification letter incorrectly stated representations must be “received” within 28 days – where letter analogous to Stewart – where Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v EFX17 [2021] HCA 9; 388 ALR 351 held notification letter must crystallise time period for making representations expressly or by reference to correct objective facts – notification letter did not meet requirements of s 501CA(3) – jurisdictional error by Tribunal – held: Tribunal’s decision quashed CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – s 116 of the Constitution –whether Part 9.2 of the Act invalid for prohibiting free exercise of religion – consideration of purpose of Part 9.2 – held: no invalidity CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – whether applicant not an “alien” and therefore not subject to operation of Act – applicant’s experience or perceptions of alienage irrelevant CONSTITUIONAL LAW – whether s 501CA of the Act infringes alleged implied Constitutional right to natural justice – natural justice arises from statutory implication or common law – argument patently weak – unnecessary to decide given success on non-Constitutional point MIGRATION – whether failure to establish evidence of service of enclosures to notification letter in breach of s 501CA(3)(a) of the Act – statutory requirement only to provide “particulars” of relevant information – claim rejected ...

Loading new posts...
No more posts