If EVERYBODY followed this method, a MASS ACTION which is Co-ordinated, each step of the way the team analyses results from each response, collaborating together in refining each persons unique complaint as a hive. This kind of action is virtually unstoppable.
TweetNational Australia Bank Ltd v Rose  VSCA 169: Consumer Guarantors In the case of National Australia Bank Ltd v Rose  VSCA 169, delivered on 21 July 2016, the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal determined that National Australia Bank did not properly inform a customer who went guarantor for $8 million in loans, meaning he would not have […]
It is understandable that a company headhunting prospective employees may be inclined to make statements that suggest working for their organisation will be lucrative. However, a company should exercise caution when making statements about its financial position and conveying forecasts about its future profitability and job security. This is especially important when recruiting high-level employees whose remuneration is not fixed and depends on the profitability of the company.
We see once the Legislation is passed and matters go before the Courts, those decisions create precedents that are binding on the lower Courts to follow.
The Sentencing guidelines here have been updated to reflect those NEW decisions that were significant enough to become part of our Common Law.
Let’s examine them now : –
If you have a Criminal case in a lower Court as low down as the Magistrates Court (VCAT,NCAT, QCAT etc do not apply) AND you raise a Constitutional Matter AND the AG’s either fail to reply or reply in the negative for intervention (thinking your case is too trivial or lacks merit) THEN not only can the Magistrates Court decide the matter but the Prosecution CAN NOT APPEAL it unless granted Special Leave by the High Court.
It is not reasonable for defendant to reverse out of driveway at 8.8 km//h where his visibility ‘extremely limited’ and where he was crossing path he knew to be regularly used by cyclists and where and there were ‘reasonably safe alternatives available to him at minimal cost’.
This decision could further dilute the application of Hammoud Brothers and the availability of the ‘no insured event’ defence for insurers. Ultimately insurers should be reviewing the wording of their policies to ensure that insured events are worded in such a way as to require insureds to discharge their burden of proving fortuitous insured events.
We will not cover your legal liability for injury to any person who normally lives with you… – The Allianz small print
The decision in Probuild significantly expands the scope for parties to challenge adjudication determinations under the Security of Payment Act.
A South Australian man has received a $7,500 fine and a criminal conviction for knowingly and recklessly using the title “psychologist” in breach of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law as in force in each state and territory (the National Law).