A nod to consent : in step with the UCPR

This article considers the decision of Robin DCJ in CTP Manager Limited v Ascent Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 74 and the likely impact of the decision on the practice in the court registries in similar circumstances.

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.

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

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.

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).

Case note : Keegan v Sussan Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd

A recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court highlights that merely having a policy in a workplace is not sufficient in itself – the policy must be implemented and followed if an employer wishes to establish that it is not in breach of its duty of care owed to employees. In Keegan v Sussan Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd an employee successfully sued in negligence for her psychiatric injury caused by her employer’s failure to follow its bullying and harassment policy.

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...

Keeping clear on costs: Geatches v Anglo Coal (Moranbah North Management Pty Ltd) [2014] QSC 106

In Geatches v Anglo Coal (Moranbah North Management Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 106, a dispute arose in the context of an assessment of costs as to the meaning to be attributed to particular terms of settlement and discharge signed by the parties. The court was required to consider the implications of those documents, and of a subsequent consent order intended to reflect the agreed settlement. Recovery of costs - terms of settlement and discharge exclude recovery of costs against one party and require other party to pay costs of claim against it - whether only subsequent consent order should be construed - implications where costs were common and mixed costs - whether costs should be apportioned