Personal injury in motor accident in NSW - procedural requirements under Motor Accidents Insurance Act 1988 (NSW)

In Hooper v Robinson [2002] QDC 080 (District Court of Queensland, D 4841 of 2001, McGill DCJ, 19.4.2002) McGill DCJ considered the application of the decision in John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson [2000] 203 CLR 503 to notice requirements such as in s42 of NSW Motor Accident Insurance Act 1988 and concluded such provisions are now substantive.

A clear view of costs ‘of and incidental to’ : Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest (No.2) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 271

In Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest (No.2) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 271 Jackson J provided considered analysis of several aspects of costs law. His Honour regarded various orders which are commonly sought or made as reflecting practice that is inappropriate or unnecessary under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).

Statutory protections from forfeiture of a leasehold estate following Apriaden Pty Ltd v Seacrest Pty Ltd

In Apriaden Pty Ltd v Seacrest Pty Ltd the Victorian Court of Appeal decided that termination of a lease under common law contractual principles following repudiation is an alternative to reliance upon an express forfeiture provision in the lease and that it is outside the sphere of statutory protections given against the enforcing of a forfeiture. The balance of authority supports the first aspect of the decision. This article focuses on the second aspect of it, which is a significant development in the law of leases. The article considers the implications of this decision for essential terms of clauses in leases, argues that common law termination for breach of essential terms should be subject to compliance with these statutory requirements and, as an alternative, suggests a way forward through appropriate law reform, considering whether the recent Victorian reform goes far enough.

Central Queensland Mining Supplies Pty Ltd v Columbia Steel Casting Co Ltd

In Central Queensland Mining Supplies Pty Ltd v Columbia Steel Casting Co Ltd [2011] QSC 183 Applegarth J considered complaints made by the defendant about the approach the plaintiff had taken in its endeavour to comply with its disclosure obligation under r 211 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The judgment also provides an indication of the direction the court is taking in relation to disclosure and document management in matters involving large numbers of documents.

Open for Inspection? Julstar Pty Ltd v Lynch Morgan Lawyers [2012] QDC 272

In Julstar Pty Ltd v Lynch Morgan Lawyers [2012] QDC 272 Dorney QC DCJ considered whether an applicant for an assessment of all or part of their costs under s 335 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (LPA) must provide grounds on which they dispute the amount of the costs charged or their liability to pay them. His Honour also made an order for inspection of the solicitor’s file, despite a claimed lien for unpaid fees.

Hamcor Pty Ltd v Queensland

The Ipp Report recommendation that for claims for personal injury and death arising from the negligent performance or non-performance of a public function based upon a policy decision, could not establish negligence unless the public authority was so unreasonable that no reasonable public authority in the same position would have made it, was adopted in different ways by all jurisdictions except South Australia and the Northern Territory.1 This introduced the public law concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness to civil liability which caused much academic debate.2 Section 36 of the Queensland provides...

Evidence in view: Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2014] QSC 256

Rule 478 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)(view by court) is silent as to the manner in which a court might be expected to exercise the discretion to order an inspection or demonstration under the rule and also as to the use which may be made of any inspection or demonstration ordered. The decision in Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2014] QSC 256 provides guidance on both matters. This case provides some guidance on the circumstances in which a court may exercise its discretion to order a view or demonstration

Development and application of methods for determination of residual monomer in dental acrylic resins using high performance liquid chromatography

Two high-performance liquid chromatographic methods for determination of residual monomer in dental acrylic resins are described. Monomers were detected by their UV absorbance at 230 nm, on a Nucleosil((R)) C-18 (5 mu m particle size, 100 angstrom pore size, 15 x 0.46 cm i.d.) column. The separation was performed using acetonitrile-water (55:45 v/v) containing 0.01% triethylamine (TEA) for methyl methacrylate and butyl methacrylate, and acetonitrile-water (60:40 v/v) containing 0.01% TEA for isobutyl methacrylate and 1,6-hexanediol dimethacrylate as mobile phases, at a flow rate of 0.8 mL/min. Good linear relationships were obtained in the concentration range 5.0-80.0 mu g/mL for methyl methacrylate, 10.0-160.0 mu g/mL for butyl methacrylate, 50.0-500.0 mu g/mL for isobutyl methacrylate and 2.5-180.0 mu g/mL for 1,6-hexanediol dimethacrylate. Adequate assay for intra- and inter-day precision and accuracy was observed during the validation process. An extraction procedure to remove residual monomer from the acrylic resins was also established. Residual monomer was obtained from broken specimens of acrylic disks using methanol as extraction solvent for 2 h in an ice-bath. The developed methods and the extraction procedure were applied to dental acrylic resins, tested with or without post-polymerization treatments, and proved to be accurate and precise for the determination of residual monomer content of the materials evaluated. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.