Category Archives: s. 079

Holroyd City Council v Zaiter [2014] NSWCA 109 (8 April 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2014/109.html

TORTS – negligence – 9 year old child injured when rode bicycle into an unfenced concrete drainage channel – drainage channel and surrounding grassed slope under care and control of appellant – presence of drainage channel not obvious from adjacent cycleway – appellant aware of risk of injury to children from unfenced drainage channel – expert report of engineer admitted without objection – whether trial judge bound to accept expert opinion – extent to which precise sequence of events leading to accident needed to be foreseen – application of sections 5B and 5C of Civil Liability Act 2002 – whether child engaged in a “dangerous recreational activity” at time of injury – s5L Civil Liability Act 2002 – application of s42 Civil Liability Act 2002 – whether resources of appellant sufficient to construct fence – ambiguity of evidence – defence not made out.

Caruana v Darouti [2014] NSWCA 85 (28 March 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2014/85.html

TORTS – negligence – occupier’s liability – respondent slipped on appellant’s driveway – whether appellant was negligent in resealing driveway – whether slip was reasonably foreseeable in circumstances where no prior accident – whether accident was caused by a positive act – whether reasonable care extended to erecting a handrail – whether trial judge failed to have regard to authorities – application of s 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2005 (NSW) to positive acts

Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 304 (21 March 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/304.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Expert evidence – Joint reports of experts – Admissibility of joint reports – Whether reasons are required for agreement between experts – Whether conclave failed to identify the material it relied upon – Whether consideration of extraneous material by the conclave constituted an irrelevant consideration – Whether experts are required to be provided with a joint statement of assumptions – Whether the questions asked of the conclave were drafted in terms that addressed relevant issues and matters appropriate for consideration by experts – Whether the joint reports are inconsistent with the common law “statement of reasoning” rule – Whether the joint reports are inconsistent with the Makita principle – Application of s 79 of the Evidence Act to joint reports of experts – Whether Court should exercise discretion to exclude the joint reports under s 135 of the Evidence Act

Matthews v SPI Electricity & Ors (Ruling No 38) [2014] VSC 102 (21 March 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2014/102.html

EVIDENCE – Expert opinion based on specialised knowledge – Differentiation of primary and secondary facts – Expert as advocate – Admissibility – “Basis rule” – Necessary to distinguish fact and opinion – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 79 – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic).

Matthews v SPI Electricity & Ors (Ruling No 39) [2014] VSC 109 (19 March 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2014/109.html

EVIDENCE – Expert opinion based on specialised knowledge – Opinion on matters outside of original remit – Admissibility – “Basis rule” – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 55, 79 – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ss 65F, 65H, 65K – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) r 44.05.

R v Iacuone; R v Duffy; R v JR [2014] ACTSC 43 (13 March 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/act/ACTSC/2014/43.html

EVIDENCE – Expert Evidence – criminal trial – conspiracy to murder – specialised knowledge – no evidence opinions based on specialised knowledge

EVIDENCE – Relevance – criminal trial – conspiracy to murder – whether opinion of psychiatrist as to whether accused would have carried out conspiracy relevant – not relevant to express an opinion on question of guilt based on evidence before jury which jury is competent to answer

Matthews v SPI Electricity & Ors (Ruling No 36) [2014] VSC 82 (11 March 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2014/82.html

EVIDENCE – Recall of second defendant’s witness for cross-examination by plaintiff – Expert evidence – Admissibility – Limitations to cross-examination – Restriction on leading questions – Expertise – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 42, 79 – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) s 65H – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) O 44.

Love v Roads Corporation [2014] VSCA 30 (6 March 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/30.html

LAND VALUATION AND COMPENSATION – Compulsory acquisition – Proposal for bypass road – Land used for agricultural purposes – Valuation according to highest and best use of land – Whether market value of land decreased because of bypass proposal – Whether land would otherwise have been used for quarrying and landfill – Planning panel recommended permit restrictions – Whether restrictions arose from bypass proposal – Pointe Gourde principle discussed – Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic) s 43(1)(a).

APPEAL – Appeal limited to questions of law – Grounds of appeal in substance challenged findings of fact – Whether open to trial judge to make findings in question – Whether judge bound to make different findings – No error of law – Appeal dismissed – Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (Vic) s 89(2).

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial – Final addresses – Directions to parties to file submissions in form of draft judgment – Plaintiff unrepresented – Whether procedurally unfair – No breach of natural justice – Procedure undesirable and not to be followed.

EVIDENCE – Opinion – Planning panel – What recommendations likely to have been made by panel if circumstances different – Proposed evidence from Planning Minister about likely outcome – No specialised knowledge – Opinion evidence inadmissible – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 76, 79.

Gray v Brimbank City Council [2014] VSC 13 (6 February 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2014/13.html

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Appeal from decision of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Declaration by Council that the dog of the appellant is a “restricted breed dog” – Declaration upheld by VCAT – Adverse findings made by senior member against expert witness of the appellant – Apprehended bias – No evidence – Inadequate reasons – Admissibility of purported expert evidence at VCAT – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted for rehearing.

Smith’s Snackfood Company Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) [2013] NSWCA 470 (23 December 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2013/470.html

TAXES AND DUTIES – payroll tax – liability to taxation – Payroll Tax Act 2007 – Payroll Tax Act 1971 – contractor provisions – whether contractors engaged under a “relevant contract” – whether appellant was supplied services ancillary to the conveyance of goods by means of a vehicle provided by the person conveying them – whether apportionment provisions of the Payroll Tax Acts should apply

In the matter of North Coast Transit Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1912 (18 December 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/1912.html

PROCEDURE – subpoenas – application for subpoena to be set aside – where subpoena is for contracts containing commercially sensitive information – where party issuing subpoena a member of the same industry – whether the production of confidential information would assist with the matter in issue – whether a legitimate forensic purpose for the subpoena – whether proposed analysis of subpoena documents falls within the proper scope of the valuation evidence – whether Practice Note SC 11 is applicable.

Northern Inland Council for the Environment Inc v Minister for the Environment [2013] FCA 1419 (20 December 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2013/1419.html

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of decision of Minister for the Environment to approve a project to construct and operate a new open cut coal mine – whether the Minister took into account an alleged disclosure of sensitive information by the New South Wales Government in making his decision – whether the conditions attached to the approval were sufficiently certain – whether the Minister failed to take into account the impact of the project on the Tylophora linearis plant species – whether s 139(2) of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) is dependent on a jurisdictional fact – if a jurisdictional fact does exist, whether the jurisdictional fact is enlivened – if the jurisdictional fact is enlivened, whether the project is likely to have a significant impact on the Tylophora linearis plant species

EVIDENCE – whether direction under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) should be made in respect of a submission made on behalf of the applicant to the Minister for the Environment in respect of the project – whether the direction is necessary to restrict inadmissible opinion evidence – whether the direction is necessary to restrict inadmissible hearsay evidence

Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 6) [2013] NSWSC 1651 (12 November 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/1651.html

DEFAMATION- cause of action- corporate plaintiff not established excluded – imputations- whether carried- identity of natural plaintiffs irrelevant to Broadcast- whether defamatory- no injury to plaintiffs’ reputation as distinct from goods- defences- justification- truth- evidence of all contextual imputations to be weighed against imputations not proved true- qualified privilege- when available to mass media- damages- special damages- whether attributable to matter complained of

EVIDENCE- findings as to credit- witness advocate for own cause

TORTS- injurious falsehood- relevant counterfactual to assess damages

WORDS AND PHRASES- meaning of ‘falsely’- synonymous with ‘incorrectly’

Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 4) [2013] NSWSC 1649 (21 October 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/1649.html

DEFAMATION- plaintiff’s entitlement to “nail the lie”- use of evidence depends on admissibility- relevant to damages- giving of evidence itself a remedy

EVIDENCE- construction of s 76, s 78 and s 79 Evidence Act 1995 – whether unqualified plaintiff’s evidence of falsity of matter of expert opinion is admissible to prove its falsity or is limited to the plaintiff’s belief

Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd & Ors (Ruling No 29) [2013] VSC 537 (10 October 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VSC/2013/537.html

EVIDENCE – Admissibility – Documents and materials used by expert witnesses in the course of preparing expert opinions – Documents and materials provided to expert witnesses in the course of preparing expert opinions – Court’s discretion to exclude evidence – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 55, 56, 69, 76, 79, 135(c), 136 – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ss 1, 8, 9, 49(3)(g).

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chaste Corporation Pty Ltd (No 3) [2013] FCA 984 (27 September 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2013/984.html

CONTEMPT OF COURT – alleged failure of fourth respondent to comply with order of the Federal Court of Australia – two charges of contempt of Court – consideration of requisite elements and whether proven beyond reasonable doubt – whether alleged contemptor was knowingly concerned in breach of orders

Held: both charges of contempt of Court proved beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding that certain particulars of charge 2 not so proved

Ubertini v Saeco International Group Spa (No 2) [2013] VSC 489 (11 September 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2013/489.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – application to amend pleadings at trial – relevant principles governing court’s discretion to grant leave to amend – role and function of pleadings – delay in seeking leave to amend – whether 1st defendant taken by surprise – whether 1st defendant likely to suffer irremediable prejudice – leave granted – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, r 36.01(1)(a) – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), ss 1(c), 7(1).

Fitzsimmons v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 273 (29 August 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2013/273.html

TORTS – negligence – occupier’s liability – appellant fell in respondent’s supermarket – where appellant slipped on wet floor left unattended for several minutes while wet floor warning signs were in place – whether respondent breached its duty of care to appellant in circumstances by failing to take reasonable precaution against risk – causation – where primary judge took into account own observations of appellant in witness box – assessment of damages where medical expert witnesses not cross-examined despite conflicting opinions – contributory negligence

TORTS – negligence – whether appeal as of right under s 127 of District Court Act 1973 – where primary judge assessed damages, if respondent were liable, at $1773 – sufficiency of appellant’s affidavit as to whether appeal as of right under UCPR r 51.22(2) – leave granted

Vic WorkCover Authority v Elsdon [2013] VSCA 235 (6 September 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2013/235.html

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION — Workplace accident — Impairment — Assessment — Medical Panel — American Medical Association Guides — Interpretation — Multilevel fractures of transverse process — Whether constituted ‘multilevel spine segment structural compromise’ — Whether Panel decision vitiated by jurisdictional error — Whether expert evidence admissible on question of construction of Guides — Appeal dismissed — Transport Accident Commission v Serwylo [2010] VSC 421 applied — Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) s 91(1) — American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4th ed).

EVIDENCE — Expert evidence — Interpretation — Impairment assessment — American Medical Association Guides — Categories of spinal impairment — Whether technical terms — Whether used with specialised meaning — Whether expert medical evidence admissible to assist in construction of terms — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 55(1), 76(1), 79.

WORDS AND PHRASES — ‘As with fractures’, ‘fractures’.

The Queen v De Saint-Aromain (Ruling No 1) [2013] VSC 398 (26 July 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2013/398.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Ruling – Admissibility of a statement of additional evidence from a witness – Evidence vague, not sufficiently relevant and not a professional opinion – Evidence inadmissible – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) s 188, Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 55, 59, 76, 77, 79(1).

Honeysett v R [2013] NSWCCA 135 (5 June 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2013/135.html

EVIDENCE – robbery of hotel – opinion evidence – s 79 Evidence Act 1995 – expert evidence of comparisons of CCTV images of offender and images of appellant – common anatomical features identified – evidence not given that there was “a high level of anatomical similarity” between offender and appellant – Morgan v R 215 A Crim R 33 distinguished – whether admissible as expert opinion evidence – whether based on specialised knowledge – whether witness qualified as an ad hoc expert

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – whether verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence – appeal dismissed

Kyluk Pty Ltd v Chief Executive Office of Environment and Heritage [2013] NSWCCA 114 (20 May 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2013/114.html

CRIMINAL LAW – environmental offences – s 118A(2) – Expert witness code – admissibility of expert reports – chain of possession – assumptions – construction of Final Determination of Scientific Committee – beyond reasonable doubt – reasonable certainty – s 194(1)(d) – foreseeability of harm

Selig v Wealthsure Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 348 (18 April 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2013/348.html

CORPORATIONS – investment advice given by Australian Financial Services Licensee and authorised representative thereof – whether investment scheme advised “Ponzi scheme” – actions under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) for loss or damage arising from misleading and deceptive conduct – whether disclosure document or statement defective – whether reasonable basis for investment advice given – whether obligation to warn client if investment advice based on incomplete or inaccurate information – whether representations as to future matters misleading – whether false or misleading statements made – whether statements made to induce dealings in financial products where maker knows or is reckless to whether statement is misleading, false or deceptive – whether false representations made in relation to standard of financial services – whether investment advice acted upon

CONTRACTS – whether investment advice given pursuant to express terms – whether advice appropriate for plaintiffs’ needs, objectives and circumstances – whether term of reasonable care implied by law, and implied by fact, breached – whether breach of warranty implied by s 12ED of Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) – whether financial services rendered with due care and skill

NEGLIGENCE – whether duty and content thereof established – whether breach of duty established

PARTNERSHIP – whether conduct of partner within ordinary course of business of, or with authority of, partnership

DAMAGES – loss of initial investment, interest on compounding basis, and consequential loss upon collapse of dependent investments sought – whether plaintiffs’ damages to be reduced on account of plaintiffs’ failure to take reasonable care – first and second defendants cross-claim brought against other defendants seeking apportionment, indemnity and contribution – whether concurrent wrongdoers – application of statutory contributory negligence and proportionate liability provisions within Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) – discussion of principles of apportionment – whether plaintiffs “consumers” for purposes of Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)

McNeil v Narrabri Shire Council [2013] NSWCA 112 (9 May 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2013/112.html

LOCAL GOVERNMENT – whether order made by council under s 124 of Local Government Act valid whether order stated what was required to be done
LOCAL GOVERNMENT whether order under item 21 of s 124 for demolition valid
LOCAL GOVERNMENT whether trespass by council where order referred only to one of two parcels of real property on the premises where order referred to address of premises containing both parcels
LOCAL GOVERNMENT whether s 124 order invalid for lack of jurisdictional fact presumption of regularity onus on appellant to prove jurisdictional fact did not exist where opinion evidence of appellant inadmissible – whether friable asbestos on premises definition of friable asbestos where bonded asbestos affected by fire

Resource Capital Fund III LP v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCA 363 (26 April 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2013/363.html

DOUBLE TAXATION TREATIES – United States Double Taxation Convention – principles of and materials in aid of interpretation – taxation of gains derived from disposition of shares in a company owning real property (mining tenements) situated in Australia by a limited partnership formed outside both Australia and the United States but comprised of limited partners being predominantly United States residents – whether gain derived by limited partnership or limited partners for the purpose of the Convention – reconciliation with any inconsistency under Australia’s domestic law – Div 5A of Pt III of Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)

INCOME TAX – Div 855 of Pt 4-5 of Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) – whether capital gains derived by a foreign resident to be disregarded – whether “principle asset test” in s 855-30 passed – consideration of what is to be valued and compared as the criterion for passing the test – hypotheses and methodologies of valuation to be adopted

Origin Energy LPG Ltd (formerly Boral Gas (NSW) Pty Ltd) v BestCare Foods Ltd [2013] NSWCA 90 (24 April 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2013/90.html

EVIDENCE – findings of fact – appellate review – whether a finding of fact by a referee was based on no evidence or no more than a mere scintilla of evidence

DAMAGES – negligence – method for valuing a loss of commercial opportunity(or loss of chance) – whether credit should be given for salvage value of business including any residual goodwill

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether primary judge erred in exercise of discretion in adopting the referee’s report

Australian Associated Motor Insurers Limited v Elmore Haulage Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA 54 (19 March 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2013/54.html

INSURANCE – Motor vehicle insurance – Indemnity in respect of liability for loss or damage resulting from use of vehicle – Exclusion in respect of liability for loss or damage intentionally caused by insured – Head on collision involving insured’s motor vehicle – Whether driver of insured’s vehicle intending to commit suicide – Application of principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 – Whether inference of suicide more probable – Whether exclusion clause of policy applied, in the event of a finding that driver of insured vehicle intended suicide.

Traderight (NSW) Pty Ltd (ACN 108 880 968) & Ors v Bank of Queensland Limited (ACN 009 656 740) (No 13) and 13 related matters [2013] NSWSC 90 (19 February 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/90.html

EVIDENCE – admissibility of an expert report – whether report relevant – whether expert opinion based wholly or substantially on an expert’s training, study or expertise -whether an expert has provided adequate explanations for opinions

Attorney General in and for the State of NSW v Bar-Mordecai [2013] NSWSC 129 (27 February 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/129.html

PROCEDURE – notice of motion – leave sought under section 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 to bring proceedings in negligence – whether plaintiff entitled to press application for leave in relation to the proposed amended statement of claim – disputed expert reports – whether s 79 of the Evidence Act 2005 applies to the disputed reports – requirements of Rule 31.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 – whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case – no prima facie case established – whether plaintiff complied with s 14(3)(c) – obligation to disclose all material facts not complied with – whether plaintiff established that proceedings were not vexatious – not established – application for leave refused – orders – costs

M A v The Queen [2013] VSCA 20 (14 February 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2013/20.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Convictions arising out of sexual abuse of appellant’s daughter – Admissibility of expert evidence as to the general behaviour of child victims of sexual abuse – Incidental evidence concerning common parental reactions – Relevance of evidence concerning counter-intuitive behaviour –Whether witness had ‘specialised knowledge’ for the purposes of ss 79 or 108C of the Evidence Act 2008 – Whether basis of opinion properly established – Whether probative value outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice – Evidence Act 2008 ss 55, 79, 135, 137, 108C – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 s 388 – Appeal dismissed.

Illawarra Hotel Company Pty Ltd v Walton Construction Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 6 (11 February 2013)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2013/6.html

CONTRACTS – building engineering and related contracts – variations – delays – extensions of time – PROCEDURE – proceedings or part thereof referred to a referee for inquiry and report – function of court upon motion for adoption of referee’s report – function of appellate court upon appeal from decision on such motion – consideration of whether sufficient evidentiary basis for various decisions of judge upon motion for adoption – DAMAGES – breach of contract – delay in completion of works – appropriate manner of assessing damages for late completion – INTEREST – pre-judgment interest – applicable regime for computing interest in the particular case

Dupas v The Queen [2012] VSCA 328 (21 December 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2012/328.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – Appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Identification evidence – Probative value – Unfair prejudice – Assessment of probative value – Reliability of the evidence – Christie discretion at common law examined – Whether danger that evidence may receive disproportionate weight required exclusion – R v Shamouil [2006] NSWCCA 112; (2006) 66 NSWLR 228 disapproved; R v Carusi (1997) 92 A Crim R 52, DSJ v R [2012] NSWCCA 9 considered – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 137.

EVIDENCE – Expert evidence as to dangers of identification evidence – Opinion rule –Credibility rule – Exception – Reliability of circumstances of identifications – Admissibility of opinion – Whether based on special knowledge – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 79, 108C.

EVIDENCE – Prison informer – Whether corroboration required – Whether Pollitt direction adequate – Pollitt v The Queen [1992] HCA 35; (1992) 174 CLR 558 considered – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 164, 165.

Archer Capital 4A Ltd as trustee for the Archer Capital Trust 4A v The Sage Group plc [2012] FCA 1476 (17 December 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/1476.html

1. By application dated 30 October 2012, the respondent sought interlocutory orders pursuant to rules 20.13 and 20.15 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for non-standard discovery of certain categories of documents. The application was supported by an affidavit of Mr Robert Tang filed 30 October 2012.
2. By a further application dated 4 December 2012, the applicants sought orders setting aside subpoenas issued on 9 November 2012 to Ernst & Young (a partnership) and on 27 November 2012 to Ernst & Young Law Pty Limited. That application was supported by an affidavit of Mr Christopher Michael Prestwich filed 4 December 2012.
3. The issue which gave rise to the respondent’s request for discovery and the issue of the subpoenas arose out of consideration by the forensic accounting expert engaged by the respondent, Mr Samuel of Sapere Research Group, of the “Offer Valuation Report” prepared by Mr Michael Potter, the expert engaged by the applicants. Each expert was retained to provide expert evidence in relation to the quantum of damages which might arise on the ultimate determination of the issues in this case.
4. For convenience I note that at the conclusion of the hearing of argument on these applications on 13 December 2012, the respondent indicated that it was content to obtain any documents sought in its application by way of an order for production from a party. The applicants indicated that they also considered that this was the preferable course.

The Australian Capital Territory v Crowley, The Commonwealth of Australia and Pitkethly [2012] ACTCA 52 (17 December 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/act/ACTCA/2012/52.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeals – where first instance decision delivered two years after conclusion of trial – circumstances in which open to appeal court to review findings of fact.

TORTS – Negligence – where plaintiff mentally ill and wielding kendo stick as weapon in public – where plaintiff shot by police officer – where plaintiff conceded police officer not negligent in discharge of weapon – whether duty of care owed by police to plaintiff – consideration of scope and application of police immunity from civil liability – whether breach of duty.

Held: Appeal allowed. The police did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care.

TORTS – Negligence – liability of statutory authority – whether ACT Mental Health owed duty of care to plaintiff – where plaintiff seen by ACT Mental Health for purposes of determining possible involuntary detention under subs 37(2) of Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994 (ACT) – where plaintiff not admitted to approved health facility – characterisation of duty of care – whether ACT Mental Health under duty to exercise statutory power to detain – whether breach of duty.

Held: Appeal allowed. ACT Mental Health owed the plaintiff a duty of care to follow up mental health assessment; however, ACT Mental Health did not breach this duty.

Cambridge v Anastasopoulos [2012] NSWCA 405 (11 December 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2012/405.html

BAILMENT – whether possession taken on behalf of second respondent – agreement that first and second respondents take possession of motorboat and quote for work – first respondent took possession on behalf of second respondent pursuant to agreement – second respondent liable as joint bailee

EVIDENCE – expert evidence – admissibility – whether primary judge erred in admitting opinion as to value of motorboat – opinion not shown to be based on specialised knowledge in turn based on training or experience – assumptions on which opinion based not stated – no explanation for reasons for conclusion as to value – evidence should have been rejected

MZYWC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 1457 (29 November 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/1457.html

EVIDENCE – admissibility – whether a matter of discretion – question whether appellant had mental capacity to participate in hearing before independent merits reviewer in relation to his claim for a protection visa – appellant relied on report of expert as to his mental condition – federal magistrate held report inadmissible – relied on weight and on conflicting evidence – no exercise of power to exclude admissible evidence because probative value outweighed by other factors – whether error by federal magistrate

HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – appeal – orders – consent orders – whether Court should make consent orders – consent orders based on incorrect assumption about basis of judgment the subject of appeal – appeal raised questions capable of being determined conclusively by appeal court

Nicholls & Ors v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2012] NSWCA 383 (28 November 2012)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2012/383.html

EQUITY – equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duties by employees and consultants – assessment after remitter of case by High Court to Court of Appeal – fiduciaries deliberately breached duties by diverting opportunities for legal work from a legal and consulting firm in Kazakhstan to their own firm and by knowingly assisting in other breaches of fiduciary duty – principles governing assessment of equitable compensation for lost opportunity to perform legal work and to receive financial rewards for involvement in projects – need to establish causation – significance of fiduciaries’ resignation from firm in order to further their wrongful conduct – extent to which plaintiff is entitled to rely on the presumption against wrongdoers where there are gaps in the evidence.

EVIDENCE – admissibility of expert report – report estimates legal work likely to be performed on particular projects and fees or other rewards likely to be derived by the firm performing the work – whether expert’s opinion met the requirements of s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 – whether opinions shown to be based on the expert’s specialised knowledge – whether report should be given any probative weight.