
General & Other judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
In a recent case, a person claimed personal injury compensation after being injured while operating a catching pen gate during a greyhound race. The NSW Supreme Court ruled that the activity was considered recreational and the risk of harm was obvious, leading to the rejection of the claim.
In this case, the Federal Court allowed a company to register its trade mark that includes the word 'a person' for use on alloy a person. This decision overrules a previous Registrar's refusal based on potential confusion with another company's a person drinks.
In this case, the NSW Court of Appeal reviewed a District Court judgment and decided on the costs based on an earlier offer of compromise made by the defendant. The Court awarded the plaintiff $7,517.25 and adjusted the costs according to the terms of the offer.
The claimant successfully obtained a declaration of possessory title to the claimed land and was awarded indemnity costs after the defendants did not accept offers of compromise.
The Federal Court allowed administrators to sell property held by a company that is subject to security interests. The decision ensures that proceeds from the sale are used first for administrative costs and then distributed according to legal requirements under the a person Act.
The NSW Court of Appeal dismissed an application for leave to appeal concerning preliminary discovery due to the broad scope of documents requested and lack of specificity regarding the documents sought.
In a construction dispute, the court granted an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent from calling on security bonds until the resolution of a dispute over the completion of works. The decision was based on the existence of a serious question to be tried regarding the entitlement to call on the bonds.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed a claim regarding uncertain interest obligations in loan agreements. The court found that the agreements were valid as they included a standard of reasonableness for determining the interest rate and payment times.
In this case, the Court of Appeal decided that an instrument granting an easement must clearly indicate the land to which the benefit of the easement is appurtenant to be enforceable against successors in title. The court ruled that the instrument in question did not meet this requirement.
In a recent case, the NSW Supreme Court ordered the claimant to undergo a medical examination by a psychologist. The claimant sought Total Permanent Disability benefits under insurance policies but refused to submit to further medical examinations. The Court ruled that the defendant was entitled to ensure that issues bearing on the determination of the proceedings were assessed by independent expert evidence.