Disclosure obligations on ex parte application for freezing order - duty of practitioners to the court - failure to comply with duty - serious dereliction of duty to court - supplemental order for costs against solicitors personally

The decision of Applegarth J in Heartwood Architectural & Joinery Pty Ltd v Redchip Lawyers [2009] QSC 195 (27 July 2009) involved a costs order against solicitors personally. This decision is but one of several recent decisions in which the court has been persuaded that the circumstances justified costs orders against legal practitioners on the indemnity basis. These decisions serve as a reminder to practitioners of their disclosure obligations when seeking any interlocutory relief in an ex parte application. These obligations are now clearly set out in r 14.4 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007 and r 25 of 2007 Barristers Rule. Inexperience or ignorance will not excuse breaches of the duties owed to the court.

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...

The statute law of Kentucky; with notes, prælections, and observations on the public acts. Comprehending also, the laws of Virginia and acts of Parliament in force in this commonwealth; the charter of Virginia, the federal and state constitutions, and so much of the King of England's proclamation in 1763, as relates to the titles to land in Kentucky. Together with a table of reference to the cases adjudicated in the Court of appeals ...

Imprint varies: v. 2-3, Frankfort, (Ken.) Printed for William Hunter, by Johnston & Pleasants. 1810-1811.--v. 4, Frankfort, (Ken.) Printed for William Hunter, by Robert Johnston. 1814.--v. 5, Frankfort, (Ken.) Printed for Butler & Wood. 1819.

A lawyer's duty of care : beware the failure to advise of contingencies and foreseeable risks

It is trite law that a lawyer owes their client a duty of care requiring the lawyer to take reasonable steps to avoid their client suffering foreseeable economiic loss: Hawkins v Clayton. In the context of a property transaction this will include a duty to warn the client of anything that is unusual or anything which may affect the client obtaining the full benefit of the contract entered into: Macindoe v Parbery.

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 s 27(1) – duty of respondent to give information and documents

In Hare v Mount Isa City Council [2009] QDC 39 McGill DCJ examined the scope of s 27(1) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) and its interpretation by the Court of Appeal in Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 276. The judge expressed a number of concerns about the Act and the Regulation made under it, that are worthy of consideration by the Legislature.

Practice and procedure - Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45 - duty of claimant to cooperate with insurer

In Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited v Brown [2004] QCA 325 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the extent of the duty of cooperation imposed on a claimant under s45 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). The issue is an important one because it affects virtually all claims made under the Act.

Members of the Oldenburg Jewish community being taken from the Kasernenbunker to the court prison after Kristallnacht Concentration Camps; Deportations

On November 11, 1938 they were deported to Sachsenhausen

In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1980, Héctor García, petitioner v. Alton V.M. Gloor ... [et al.], respondents : on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit : petition for writ of certiorari /

At head of title: no.

Fugitive slave law [electronic resource] : The religious duty of obedience to law; a sermon preached in the Second Presbyterian Church in Brooklyn, Nov. 24, 1850. /

Electronic text and image data.