Settlement offers on appeal : when might costs be awarded on the indemnity basis?

In Roberts v Prendergast [2013] QCA 89 the respondent had offered to settle the appeal, purporting to make the offer under Chapter 9 Part 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). Differing views were expressed in the Court of Appeal regarding the impact in the circumstances of the offer to settle, with the majority concluding that the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis.

Plain facts about pleading : how to work with r 166

The decision of Durward SC DCJ in OSM Group Pty Ltd v Holden [2013] QDC 151 involves a useful consideration of the requirements relating to the pleading of denials and non-admissions under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). In particular, the decision examines the extent of the obligations when pleading in response to allegations of law, or of mixed fact and law.

Offer to settle in an originating application : is it an offer under the UCPR?

Sheryl Jackson looks at the decision of Justice McMeekin in Northbound Property Group Pty Ltd v Carosi (No.2) [2013] QSC 189.

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).

When two wrongs don't make it proportionate.

In Hobbs Haulage Pty Ltd v Zupps Southside Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 319 Jackson J considered the application of the concurrent liability provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).

Statute bar remains firm

In Hall v Don Faulkner Motors Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 331 Mullins j considered some significant questions relating to the construction of s11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) as that provision relates to dependency claims.

What further benefit, if any, might Australia get from the ALI-III Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases?

In 2006, the American Law Institute (ALI) and the International Insolvency Institute (III) established a Transnational Insolvency Project and appointed Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (Netherlands) as Joint Reporters. The objective was to investigate whether the essential provisions of the ALI Principles of Cooperation among the NAFTA Countries (ALI-NAFTA Principles) and the annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases (ALI-NAFTA Guidelines) may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. In 2012, Professor Fletcher and Professor Wessels presented the report Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“ALI-III Report”) to the Annual Meetings of the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute. In 2013, the Australian Academy of Law (AAL) provided support to the authors to undertake research on the possible benefits for Australia of courts and insolvency administrators of referring to the ALI-III Report when addressing international insolvency cases. This AAL project was at the request of the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand. This research Report compares the Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases with the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 and the UNCITRAL Model Law as it has been adopted and has force of law in Australia. Further, it examines the Global Guidelines for Court-to-Court Communications in International Insolvency Cases in light of Australian cross-border insolvency and procedural law. Finally, it makes brief reference to and commentary on the Global Rules on Conflict–of-Laws Matters in International Insolvency Cases annexed to the ALI-III Report from the perspective of Australian choice of law rules.

Why ADR must be a mandatory subject in the law degree : A cheat sheet for the willing and a primer for the non-believer

The profession of law is deeply steeped in tradition and conservatism, which influences the content and pedagogy employed in law faculties across Australia. Indeed, the practice of law and the institutions of legal education are in a relationship of mutual influence; a dénouement which preserves the best aspects of the common law legal system, but also leaves the way we educate, practice and think about the role of law resistant to change. In this article, the authors lay down a challenge to legal education orthodoxy and a call to arms for legal academic progressivists: that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) should be a compulsory, stand alone subject in the law degree. The authors put forward 10 simple arguments as to why every law student should be exposed to a semester-long course of ADR instruction.

The Australian Nonprofit Sector Legal and Accounting Almanac 2013

INTRODUCTION CASES For a number of years, Professor Myles McGregor-Lowndes, Frances Hannah and Anne Overell have compiled one to two page summaries of cases involving nonprofit organisations and published them on The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Developing Your Organisation (DYO) website.1 You can be alerted of new case summaries as they are posted to the DYO website by subscribing to the ACPNS RSS feed or the ACPNS twitter service.2 There were some very significant cases during 2013, such as Commissioner of Taxation v Cancer & Bowel Research Association (see case notes 2.8.2 and 2.8.11), The Hunger Project case which is under appeal, but could change the face of PBI jurisprudence (see case note 2.8.7) while Home Health Pty Ltd retained the PBI status quo but might have been different if appealed (see case note 2.8.8). For sheer interest there is nothing better in my 30 odd years of reading tax and charity judgements than case involving The Study and Prevention of Psychological Diseases Foundation Incorporated (see case note 2.1.1). It even rivals some of the more bizarre cases from the US jurisdiction of which St Joseph Abbey v Castille (case note 2.10.9) is certainly ‘dead centre’. A set of cases which stand out for attention are those involving New Zealand’s Christchurch Cathedral which anyone with responsibility for heritage-listed buildings should study carefully, for implications in relation to their own circumstances. A number of cases summarised in this Almanac are working their way through the appeals process and care should be taken with their application. In addition, some of the cases are from jurisdictions outside Australia, and readers should exercise caution when considering the implications of these cases for Australian law. LEGISLATION The Almanac includes a review of major statutory amendments during 2013, which are relevant to the nonprofit sector in all Australian jurisdictions. Special thanks must go to Nathan MacDonald and the JusticeConnect team for providing legislative updates for Victoria. SPECIAL ISSUES DURING 2013 A number of legal practitioners have contributed articles on significant legal issues facing nonprofit organisations: charitable trusts giving to government entities (Alice Macdougall); workplace bullying (Tim Longwill); and privacy (James Tan and Nina Brewer). WORLD ROUND-UP Major developments from the UK and Ireland (Kerry O’Halloran), Canada (Peter Broder), New Zealand (Michael Gousmett and Susan Barker) and Jamaica (Frances Hannah) are all summarised in a review of a significant part of the common law charity jurisdictions. WHAT DOES 2014 HOLD The final section moves from looking in the rear view mirror to peering out the front windscreen to discern the reform agenda. The view from the windscreen in 2013 was of considerable reform traffic at the Commonwealth level jostling for a place in the parliamentary agenda. This year is quite different with a smaller number of vehicles ahead, but the potential for significant impact.

Court stands firm on disclosure via subpoena

In Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd v Gooden [2014] QDC 22 Reid DCJ considered the interaction of the procedures under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)relating to disclosure by parties to a proceeding and the subpoena process, in the context of a proceeding commenced by originating application.

Assessment of costs : challenge to validity of client agreement between party entitled to costs and its solicitors

In ASIC v Atlantic 3 Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 540 the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the decision of Mullins J at first instance in ASIC v Atlantic 3 Financial (Aust) Pty LTd [2006] QSC 152, the majority concluding that the client agreement in issue was not inconsistent with s48 of the Queensland Law Society Act 1952.

Plain English writing in Sri Lanka - an achievable goal

The use of plain English in document writing, whether in correspondence, agreements and deeds, court documents or judicial writing, is an important goal for the legal profession in Sri Lanka.

Using the internet to assist court processes : delivery of justice in an electronic age

This article presents an overview of two aspects of the role the internet now plays in the court system - first, the extent to which judges, administrators and court officials at the different levels in the court hierarchy are using the internet to deliver enhanced access to the Australian justice system for the community as a whole, and second, how they have embraced that same technology as an aid for accessing information for better judgment delivery and administration.

Practice & procedure : Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002

The decision of Atkinson J in Watkins v State of Queensland [2007] QSC 057 on an application for disclosure of documents under s27 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) required determination of a range of issues relating to the disclosure of documents and legal professional privilege.

Disclosure obligations - Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002

In Huag v Jupiters Limited [2007] QSC 068, Lyons J considered the extent of the obligations imposed upon a respondent under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 to disclose documents and information.