The Neighbourhood Disputes Resolution Act 2011 (Qld) and disclosure issues

This article examines the recently introduced Neighbourhood Disputes Resolution Act 2011 (Qld). The operation of the Act is considered as it impacts upon the responsibility of neighbours for dividing fences and trees as well as disclosure obligations associated with sale transactions. A particular focus of the article is the interrelationship of the disclosure obligations imposed by the Act with the operation of standard contractual warranties in Queensland.

Practice and Procedure: Worker's Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s275

In Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v Sayers [2007] QSC 390 Daubney J considered the obligation imposed on a claimant under s 275 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) to provide the insurer with an authority to obtain information and documents. The decision leads to practical results.

Submission to the 2012 Review of the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld)

The submission addresses matters relevant to Issues for Comment numbered 1, 3, 5, 22 and 32 of the Issues Paper released by the Transport, Housing and local Government Committee of the Queensland Parliament. It concludes by making five recommendations for consideration by the Committee.

Practice and Procedure : Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 131 and 237(1)

In Jacobs v Woolworths Limited [2010] QSC 24 Jones J was required to determine whether a worker who had lodged an application for compensation for an injury outside the time prescribed under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) was precluded from seeking common law damages for that injury. This determination depended upon the proper construction of s 131 of the Act, and what was to be understood by the words “worker who has not lodged an application for compensation for the injury” for the purpose of s 237(1)(d).

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253 – whether refusal to stay execution of costs is an order “as to costs only”

In Virgtel Ltd v Zabusky [2009] QCA 92 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the scope of an order “as to costs only” within the meaning of s 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) (‘the Act”). The Court also declined to accept submissions from one of the parties after oral hearing, and made some useful comments which serve as a reminder to practitioners of their obligations in that regard.

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253 - leave to appeal costs orders - appeal against substantive judgment insufficient - must be arguable case that discretion will be overturned on appeal

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in AGL Sales (Qld) Pty Ltd v Dawson Sales Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 262 provides clear direction on the Court’s expectations of a party seeking leave to appeal a costs order.This decision is likely to impact upon common practice in relation to appeals against costs orders. It sends a clear message to trial judges that they should not give leave as of course when giving a judgment in relation to costs, and that parties seeking leave under s 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) should make a separate application. The application should be supported by material presenting an arguable case that the trial judge made an error in the exercise of the discretion of the kind described in House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499. A different, and interesting, aspect of this appeal is that it was the first wholly electronic civil appeal. The court-provided technology had been adopted at trial, and the Court of Appeal dispensed with any requirement for hard copy appeal record books.

Practice and Procedures - Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 ss 39 and 57

In Bermingham v Priest [2002] QSC 057 jones J considered the position of persons seeking to claim damages where the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 applies prior to its amendment by the Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Act 2000, and where proceedings are brought close to expiration of the statutory limitation period.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - obligation to disclose

In Turpin v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, S5216 of 2001), Mullins J, 17.10.2001) the plaintiff applied for a declaration that the respondent disclose pursuant to s47 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 copies of three statements referred to in a loss assessor's investigation report as "attached". The issue involved determination of whether the statements must be disclosed under s48(2) even though protected by legal professional privilege. The Court applied the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in James v Workcover Queensland.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - whether vehicle in question a vehicle "for which registration is required"

In Gideona v Nominal Defendant [2005] QCA 261, the Queensland Court of Appeal reconsidered the question of what is the material time for determining whether registration of a motor vehicle is required. The Court declined to follow the decision in Kelly v Alford [1988] 1 Qd R 404; deciding that the material time was the time when the accident occurred.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45 - whether obligation to co-operate may authorise order requiring commencement of proceedings by minor prior to expiration of limitation period

In Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd v McPaul; Council of the City of Gold Coast v McPaul [2005] QSC 278 the applicant insurer sought an order requiring a claimant who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident some years earlier when he was five years old to commence a proceeding to determine the question of the applicant's liability to him. The applicant's interest in seeking the order was to avoid the prejudice which could follow from further delay, particularly delay until the respondent became obliged to commence proceedings to avoid a limitations bar.

When can a tenancy be terminated under s 129 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)?

This article reviews the nature and purpose of s 129 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) whose application has given rise to some confusion in the past, particularly where the lessee against whom it is being used is also in breach of the lease at the time of receiving the notice. The article explores the historical origins of the section, firstly in New South Wales where it was enacted in 1930, and attempts to outline modern circumstances where it may be applied or particularly applied in Queensland.

Child sexual abuse and access to justice for civil claims: Time to reform the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)

In 2015, Victoria passed laws removing the time limit in which a survivor of child sexual abuse can commence a civil claim for personal injury. The law applies also to physical abuse, and to psychological injury arising from those forms of abuse. In 2016, New South Wales made almost identical legal reforms. These reforms were partly motivated by the recommendations of inquiries into institutional child abuse. Of particular relevance is that the Australian Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended in 2015 that all States and Territories remove their time limits for civil claims. This presentation explores the problems with standard time limits when applied to child sexual abuse cases (whether occurring within or beyond institutions), the scientific, ethical and legal justifications for lifting the time limits, and solutions for future law reform.