Request for production of documents – UCPR r 222 – manner of compliance

In John Kallinicos Accountants Pty Ltd v Dundrenan Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 141 Irwin DCJ considered the nature of a party’s obligation under r 222 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) to produce documents referred to in the parties’ pleadings, particulars or affidavits. The decision examined whether the approach in Belela Pty Ltd v Menzies Excavation Pty Ltd [2005] 2 QdR 230 in relation to disclosure of documents under UCPR r 214 also applied to production of documents under r 222.

Indemnity costs - whether indemnity costs can be ordered in Magistrates Court

In Asset Loan Management v Mamap Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 295, McGill DCJ held that costs may be recovered in Magistrates Courts on the indemnity basis. His Honour was satisfied his conclusion in this respect was not precluded by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Beardmore v Franklins Management Services Pty Ltd [2002] QCA 60

Improper coaching of witnesses costs defendant its judgment

In its judgment on April 11, 2005, in Day v Perisher Blue Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 110, the NSW Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the District Court in favour of the defendant. The main ground for the decision of the Court of Appeal related to the conduct of the defendant's solicitors and its witnesses prior to trial. The Court subsequently referred the matter to the Legal Services Commissioner.

Insurance and transport law : controlling insurance contract terms : Section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act – compliance, recovery and accountability

Commonwealth legislation covering insurance contracts contains numerous provisions designed to control the operation and effect of terms in life and general insurance contracts. For example, the Life Insurance Act 1995 (Cth) contains provisions regulating the consequences attendant upon incorrect statements in proposals [1] and non-payment of premiums, [2] provides that an insurer may only exclude liability in the case of suicide if it has made express provision for such contingency in its policy, [3] and severely restricts the efficacy of conditions as to war risks. [4] The Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) is even more intrusive and has a major impact upon contractual provisions in the general insurance field. It is beyond the scope of this note to explore all of these provisions in any detail but examples of controls and constraints imposed upon the operation and effect of contractual provisions include the following. A party is precluded from relying upon a provision in a contract of insurance if such reliance would amount to a failure to act with the utmost good faith. [5] Similarly, a policy provision which requires differences or disputes arising out of the insurance to be submitted to arbitration is void, [6] unless the insurance is a genuine cover for excess of loss over and above another specified insurance. [7] Similarly clause such as conciliation clauses, [8] average clauses, [9] and unusual terms [10] are given qualified operation. [11] However the provision in the Insurance Contracts Act that has the greatest impact upon, and application to, a wide range of insurance clauses and claims is s 54. This section has already generated a significant volume of case law and is the focus of this note. In particular this note examines two recent cases. The first, Johnson v Triple C Furniture and Electrical Pty Ltd [2012] 2 Qd R 337, (hereafter the Triple C case), is a decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal; and the second, Matthew Maxwell v Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 115, (hereafter the Highway Hauliers case), is a decision of the Court of Appeal in Western Australia. This latter decision is on appeal to the High Court of Australia. The note considers too the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Prepaid Services Pty Ltd v Atradius Credit Insurance NV [2013] NSWCA 252 (hereafter the Prepaid Services case).These cases serve to highlight the complex nature of s 54 and its application, as well as the difficulty in achieving a balance between an insurer and an insured's reasonable expectations.

Amendments potentially time-barred : A practical approach

In Mineral Resources Engineering Services Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Meakin Investment Trust v Commonwealth Bank of Australia: Hay v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2015] QSC 62 Philip McMurdo J considered challenges to amended statements of claim in two related actions. The amendments were potentially time-barred and his Honour considered in particular the date from which the amendments should take effect.

Factor 5 in eco-cement: Zeobond Pty Ltd

Cement production is estimated to be responsible for approximately 6 per cent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. One of the most promising alternatives to common Portland cement is geopolymer cement, and Australian company Zeobond is a bone fide leader in its manufacture.

No variance for filed orders: Hayes v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] QCA 260

In Hayes v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] QCA 260 the Queensland Court of Appeal examined the relationship between rules 7 (extending and shortening time) and 667 (setting aside) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), and held that r667(1) does not enable the court to set aside or vary an order after the order has been filed. The court found that, to the extent that this conclusion was contrary to the decision in McIntosh v Linke Nominees Pty Ltd [2010] 1 Qd R 152, the decision in McIntosh was wrong and should not be followed.

Queensland requirements (old and new) for the appointment of a real estate agent

In Moneywood Pty Ltd v Salamon Nominees Pty Ltd 1 the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Queensland Court of Appeal in relation to the correct interpretation of s76 (1)(c) Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971 (Qld). In paraphrase, s76(1)(c) provides that a real estate agent shall not be entitled to sue for or recover any commission unless “the engagement or appointment to act as …..real estate agent ….. in respect of such transaction is in writing signed by the person to be charged with such…..commission…..or the person’s agent or representative” (“the statutory requirement”).

The meaning of 'material prejudice'

As dictated by s 213 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), the seller of a proposed lot is required to provide the buyer with a disclosure statement before the contract is entered into. Where the seller subsequently becomes aware that information contained in the disclosure statement was inaccurate when the contract was entered into or the disclosure statement would not be accurate if now given as a disclosure statement, the seller must, within 14 days, give the buyer a further statement rectifying the inaccuracies in the disclosure statement. Provided the contract has not been settled, where a further statement varies the disclosure statement to such a degree that the buyer would be materially prejudiced if compelled to complete the contract, the buyer may cancel the contract by written notice given to the seller within 14 days, or a longer period as agreed between the parties, after the seller gives the buyer the further statement. The term ‘material prejudice’ was considered by Wilson J in Wilson v Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd.

Commercial vulnerability of tenant : a special disadvantage?

The Full Federal Court has once again been called upon to explore the limits of s51AA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in the context of a retail tenancy between commercially experienced parties. The decision is Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 62.

No more than a messenger?

If a real estate agent describes a property as being “a golden opportunity to invest” the expression will be readily construed as mere “puffery”. The legal landscape changes when a real estate agent describes a property as “leased” and having a “guaranteed net income”. Can an agent avoid potential liability, for an inaccurate description, by arguing that they were merely acting as a messenger to pass on information received from their vendor client? The potential liability of real estate agent “messengers” was recently considered by the Queensland Court of Appeal in Banks & Anor v Copas Newnham Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] QCA 217.

Queensland Court of Appeal opines on the meaning of 'material prejudice'

The decision of Wilson J in Wilson v Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd was the subject of an article in an earlier edition of this journal. At that time, it was foreshadowed that the decision was to be taken on appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd v Wilson is considered in this article.

Statutory fraud or not?

The possibility of fraud lurks easily in the context of a mortgage transaction (as recently exemplified by the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Young v Hoger [2001] QCA 461). A relatively novel issue, involving an allegation of fraudulent behaviour, arose for consideration by Justice Wilson in Unic v Quartermain Holdings Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 403

Unreasonable withholding of consent?

In Cathmark Pty Ltd v NetherCott Constructions Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 86, Cullinane J was asked to consider whether a landlord had unreasonably withheld consent to a tenant’s proposed assignment of lease. In reaching a conclusion that the landlord had acted unreasonably, the decision provides useful guidance on an issue that is common in a proposed sale of business context.