tttttttttt

Congratulations to our 19 counsel who have been listed a total of 39 times in this year's The Best Lawyers in Australia (2022 Edition). They are: Jodi Steele SC for: Alternative Dispute Resolution; Insurance Law; Litigation Clifford Ireland for: Construction / Infrastructure Law; Planning and Environmental Law; Real Property Law; Water Law William McManus for: Construction / Infrastructure Law Stuart Kettle for: Health and Aged Care Law; Medical Negligence Karen Kumar for: Health and Aged Care Law; Insurance Law; Medical Negligence; Professional Malpractice Litigation Patrick Rooney for: Health and Aged Care Law; Medical Negligence; Professional Malpractice Litigation Michael Windsor SC for: Health and Aged Care Law; Insurance Law; Medical Negligence; Professional Malpractice Litigation James Thomson for: Insolvency and Reorganization Law Teni Berberian for: Insurance Law Carolyn Coventry for: Insurance Law Matthew Hutchings for: Insurance Law; Medical Negligence; Police; Public Law Greg Laughton SC for: International Arbitration; Insurance Law; Product Liability Litigation Mark McCulloch SC for: Insurance Law; Professional Malpractice Litigation Ralphed Notley for: Insurance Law Christopher Wood SC for: Litigation Raphael Perla for:Personal Injury Litigation Denis Barlin for: Trusts and Estates Colin Hodgson for: Trusts and Estates Michael Bennett for: Wealth Management/ Succession Planning Practice...

Catchwords: Immigration – Cancellation of protection visa – Notice of cancellation – Where delegate of Minister cancelled respondent's visa under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where pursuant to duties in s 501CA(3) letter from delegate and enclosures sent explaining decision to cancel respondent's visa and opportunity to make representations about revoking decision – Where letter and enclosures given to respondent by corrective services officer – Where letter incorrectly stated date on which respondent taken to have received notice – Whether Minister complied with duty to "give" written notice and particulars and "invite" representations under s 501CA(3) – Whether capacity of respondent to understand written notice, particulars, and invitation relevant to whether duties in s 501CA(3) were performed – Whether Minister or delegate required personally to perform duties in s 501CA(3) – Whether Minister failed to invite representations as letter did not specify period within which to make representations in accordance with Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). Words and phrases – "capacity to understand", "deliver", "give", "in the way that the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances", "incapacity", "invite", "method of delivery", "notice", "ordinary meaning", "personally to perform", "requesting formally", "service", "substantive content", "within the period and in the manner ascertained in accordance with the regulations". ...

Catchwords: Taxation – Administration – Goods and services tax – Taxable supply – Running Balance Accounts ("RBA") – Commissioner's obligation to pay interest – Where Commissioner lacked statutory authority to amend taxpayer's GST return – Where net amount in GST return calculated in error – Where Commissioner purported to amend taxpayer's GST return and credited taxpayer's RBA – Whether mistaken balance in an RBA is efficacious in law to constitute an RBA surplus within meaning of Pt IIB of Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) – Whether Commissioner obliged to pay interest under Taxation (Interest on Overpayments and Early Payments) Act 1983 (Cth). Words and phrases – "administration", "allocation", "amounts due to the Commonwealth under taxation laws", "erroneous balances", "goods and services tax", "interest", "RBA", "RBA deficit debt", "RBA surplus", "refund", "running balance account", "taxation administration". ...

Catchwords: Practice and procedure – Representative action – Stay – Where five open class representative actions commenced against same defendant in relation to same controversy – Where considerable overlap between claims made in proceedings – Where representative plaintiff in four proceedings filed notice of motion in Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking orders that each other proceeding be permanently stayed – Whether Supreme Court's power to grant stay is confined by rule or presumption that representative proceeding issued first in time is to be preferred – Whether litigation funding arrangements can be relevant consideration under s 67 of Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – Whether Supreme Court erred in considering litigation funding arrangements. Words and phrases – "abuse of process", "auction process", "certification and carriage motion procedures", "class actions", "competing funding proposals, costs estimates and net hypothetical return to members", "competing representative proceedings", "conflicts of interest", "contradictor", "duplicative proceedings", "equitable principles concerning test actions", "first-in-time rule or presumption", "funding model", "litigation funding arrangements", "multifactorial approach", "multiplicity", "one size fits all", "power to grant a stay", "prima facie vexatious and oppressive", "representative proceedings", "special referee". ...

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW — appeal from an order of the primary judge that an order of a magistrate made pursuant to s 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) is invalid — where an order pursuant to s 3LA was made in respect of a smart phone seized during the execution of a warrant for the search of a person — whether natural justice attaches to an application under s 3LA and the appellant was entitled to a hearing before the s 3LA Order was made — statutory construction of s 3LA — whether the s 3LA Order requires details of the information or assistance to be provided by the person to whom the order is directed — whether the s 3LA Order requires information as to the place at which and the time within which the information or assistance must be provided — whether the s 3LA Order contains the required details of the particular computer or data storage device which is the subject of the order — whether smart phone is a “computer or data storage device” for the purposes of s 3LA — whether breaches of various statutory provisions result in invalidity — whether the legislature intended to abrogate or curtail the privilege against self-incrimination — appeal allowed ...

Catchwords: TAXATION – application for Coronavirus economic response payment (jobkeeper payment) – whether respondent eligible for jobkeeper payment – whether respondent “had an ABN on 12 March 2020” within the meaning of s 11(6) of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Rules 2020 (Cth) (CERP Rules) – where respondent was not registered for an ABN on 12 March 2020 – where respondent was later registered for an ABN with a “date of effect” covering 12 March 2020 – held respondent did not have an ABN within the meaning of s 11(6) of the CERP Rules – whether the Commissioner’s decision not to exercise the discretion in s 11(6) of the CERP Rules to allow a later time for the respondent to have an ABN forms part of the reviewable decision – held Commissioner’s decision not to exercise the later time discretion was part of the reviewable decision – whether Tribunal erred in exercising the discretion to allow a later time in the respondent’s favour – held Tribunal did not err in exercising discretion – appeal dismissed ...

Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – where company admitted to unconscionable conduct by a system or pattern of behaviour in contravention of s 21 Australian Consumer Law (ACL) – where penalties and declarations agreed with regulator – where primary judge found the majority in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt [2019] HCA 18 considered s 12CB of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) requires exploitation of some disadvantage or vulnerability by a stronger party and therefore s 21 of the ACL also requires those features to be present in the conduct – primary judge not satisfied investors, to whom the company’s conduct was directed, could be characterised as vulnerable or exploited – primary judge found no contravention of s 21 – whether judge found exploitation of a special disadvantage in the equitable sense is required under s 21 – whether Kobelt, precedent or statutory interpretation requires that exploitation or taking advantage of some pre-existing vulnerability, disadvantage, or disability is a necessary element of statutory unconscionability under s 21 ACL – appeal allowed. ...

Loading new posts...
No more posts