Court finds solicitor in breach of fiduciary duty owed to client but loss not caused by the breach

A solicitor owes fiduciary obligations to his or her client including the obligations of loyalty and disclosure. The Court of Appeal in Mantonella Pty Ltd v Thompson (2009) 255 ALR 367; [2009] QCA 80; BC200902311 recently considered when the fiduciary duty owed by a solicitor to a client is breached and the consequent liability of the solicitor...

Child complainants and the court process in Australia

In recent years, it has been recognised that child complainants in the criminal justice system can experience difficulties over and above those of other complainants and that children can experience the court process as extremely traumatising. This can be exacerbated if children are complainants in child sexual offence matters and if they have to give evidence against a family member. This paper has three primary aims. First, it outlines the major factors that contribute to making court processes harrowing for child complainants. Second, it outlines some of the main initiatives that have been introduced to address these factors. Finally, it weighs up the evidence about initiatives designed to assist child complainants and concludes that such initiatives have had only limited practical impact for child complainants in the criminal justice system. The limited impact is attributed to the need to balance the rights of the accused with consideration for the complainant, a failure to translate legislative changes into practice, the impact of judicial discretion and/or a focus on protecting child complainants at the expense of increasing convictions.

Court finds negligent dental treatment not an intentional act intended to cause harm : Dean v Phung

NSW Supreme Court decision - claim resulting from alleged damaging dental treatment of healthy teeth - failure of plaintiff to prove dishonest and fraudulent behaviour - assessment of damages.

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.

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.

Federal Court Rules 027 r 11 - Subpoena to give evidence

In Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Rural and General Insurance Let [2004] FCA 933, Gyles J considered what he described as "a novel question", namely, whether taking steps to prepare to give oral evidence when subpoenaed to attend for that purpose, including the obtaining of legal advice and assistance, could be recovered by the witness under O 27 r 11 of the Federal Court Rules

Practice and procedure - District Court Act 1967 s79 - transfer of proceeding pending in Magistrates Court to District Court

In Lambert v Surplice [2004] QDC 092 McGill DCJ considered the extent to which the court should exercise a discretion on an application under s79 of the District Court Act 1967 to transfer a proceeding pending in the Magistrates Court to the District Court.

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

Default judgment - whether irregular - whether court has residual discretion not to set aside default judgment irregularly entered

In CB Richard Ellis (C) Pty Ltd v Wingate Properties Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 399 McGill DCJ examined whether the court now has a discretion to set aside an irregularly entered default judgment.

Supreme Court Act 1995 s48 - Interest on judgment for damages for personal injuries

The case of Flynn v The Maryborough Sugar Factory Limited [2003] QDC 446 the plaintiff had been awarded damages for personal injuries and there was a charge on those damages under a Commonwealth statute, with a provision in the statute that damages could not be satisfied until the Commonwealth had been paid. The Court considered the point of considerable practical significance of whether interest accrued on the judgment under s48 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) before the defendant had obtained clearances under the Commonwealth legislation.

Disclosure of documents : by duty, court order, or beyond reach?

The article examines the decision in Erskine v McDowall [2001] QDC 192, where the Court considered an application for an order that the defendant disclose documents to which she had a right of access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).

Should the court direct that costs ordered to be recovered on the indemnity basis be assessed by reference to a costs agreement between the successful party and their solicitors?

The decision in Hook v Boreham & QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2006] QDC 304 considered whether the court should go further than order that costs be assessed on the indemnity basis, but should also specify the basis by which those indemnity costs should be determined. The decision makes it clear that under r704(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, questions of that nature are ordinarily preserved to the discretion of the Registrar.

Duty to the court and the administration of justice : some examples, implications and clarifications

No liberal democracy can survive without popular trust in its judicial system. The legal profession and the judiciary enjoy a level of independence and autonomy from the executive that makes them both powerful and privileged. A UNIQUE AND ORGANIC DUTY: So long as the courts are seen to fulfil their duty to guard against encroachments by the executive on the freedoms and rights of individual citizens with integrity and credibility, they maintain enough public support to retain their normative authority. But support for those with power and privilege is easily undermined. It is contingent upon trust. Lawyers who breach that trust in ways that go to the heart of the legal system ought to expect to be made examples of and to suffer severe penalties. The good news is that the sorts of breach discussed here should be neither difficult to anticipate nor to avoid – in theory. In practice, smart and honest lawyers sometimes fall foul of these duties for all sorts of understandable (if not condonable) reasons. Law does not get practised in a social or cultural vacuum. Lawyers are people, and people have weaknesses, failings and stresses...