TweetIntroduction I was at the Magistrates Court today and a party to a speeding matter had some senior counsel representing him. A thick bound folder in hand with a title on the side “Motor Vehicle Laws”, this was going to be a contested trial. The defence raised? Necessity. What? He had to do it? […]
TweetIn a recent case before the New South Wales Supreme Court, an employer has been successful in securing an injunction against an employee. The employee has been restrained from departing from his contractual obligations until 11 September 2016. Facts The case of BCG Partners (Australia) Pty Ltd v Hickey  NSWSC 90 involved a senior […]
An undischarged bankrupt, and serial vexatious litigant, registered a financing statement on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) claiming a security interest over all the property of the Bank.
The convenience of executing legal documentation with electronic signatures must be carefully weighed against issues of enforceability and security. In this update, we explain the decision in Williams Group Australia Pty Ltd v Crocker  NSWSC 1907, in which the Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled that a company director was not bound by a guarantee that (apparently) bore his electronic signature.
Four years later the same parties are back before the same Court on the very same issue now in Bobolas v Waverley Council  NSWCA 139 Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the adoption of the Plain Packaging Measures was foreseeable well before the Claimant’s decision to restructure was taken (let alone implemented).
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the initiation of this arbitration constitutes an abuse of rights.
The HSBC Bank was appealing against a decision where it was found to have acted unconscionably when it provided a loan to the husband with the wife acting as guarantor.
The bank was now arguing whether it was arguably unconscionable for the lender to enforce a mortgage where the loan has not been repaid.
A police officer sued the Police Commissioner and the New South Wales Government for vicarious liability, alleging negligence and breach of duty of care for failure of the Commissioner of Police to take reasonable precautions against the officer’s risk of suffering psychiatric injury.
The husband applied for the discharge of that order. He relied on new evidence of the father’s testamentary “wish[es]” that, first, the wife should receive from the Group a lump sum cash payment of $16,500,000 in the event of her divorce from the husband, and, second, that the wife should receive from the Group an annual payment of $150,000 until the date (if any) of the lump sum payment.
The concept of “vicarious liability” has caused great difficulty in the law since it was first coined by Sir Frederick Pollock in 1877.