the defendant must adduce proofs that raise a “more probable than not” inference in favour of what it urges; there must be a reasonable and definite inference available on the whole of the evidence; there must be something more than conflicting inferences of equal degrees of probability. And in assessing whether the defendant has satisfied its obligation, the Court must take into account the gravity of the matters alleged….
Paragraph 11 of the Customer Owned Banking Code of Practice (COBCOP) states that a credit provider must not accept an applicant as a co-borrower where it is aware, or ought to be aware, that the applicant will not receive a benefit from the loan or other credit facility.
So both in Common Law and by virtue of legislative instruments if you are the Victim of a Troll on the Internet who hides behind an Anonymous account, BEFORE you commence action against the Troll you need to know their true Identity and the above shows you how, in law, the Courts and the legal system are here to ensure you get Justice and the perpetrator is called to account.
Issue: Judicial review of an Administrative decision, a guy claimed injury in the course of employment, so he found Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) which allow the Court to review the opinion of the Medical Panel made under Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013(Vic) in respect of the his capacity to work. The Medical Panel’s opinion had effect that his claim must
fail and he loses his compensation.
A Federal Court ruling has found that an employer engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct during pre-employment negotiations and awarded the employee $333,422 compensation by way of loss and damage.
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 […]
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 concept of “vicarious liability” has caused great difficulty in the law since it was first coined by Sir Frederick Pollock in 1877.