
General & Other judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
In this case, the Federal Court allowed a a company to amend its composition by adding or removing apical ancestors from their list. This decision follows the legal requirements set out in s 251B of the Native Title Act and ensures that proper notice was given to all relevant parties.
The Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal where the claimant tried to prevent another business from using a geographic name. The court ruled that the claimant did not sufficiently demonstrate exclusive rights over the term, leading to dismissal.
A company was fined $1.2 million for not telling the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) about expected changes in its financial performance that could affect stock prices or values. This case highlights the importance of timely and accurate disclosure to maintain market integrity.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales decided that a property purchased by a family member for another is held on trust for both parties in equal shares if there is a mutual intention to do so.
The court declared a contract void because it was considered harsh or unjust. The contract involved the liability of a loan being shared among certain parties. As a result, compensation and interest payments were ordered.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales approved a settlement for a minor plaintiff who suffered a brain injury from a water feature. The court considered the risks of establishing liability and approved a reduced settlement amount.
The NSW Supreme Court dismissed a claimant's disability insurance claim, ruling that his mental health issues did not qualify as partial disability under the policy. The court found the claimant's evidence unreliable and concluded that he was not partially disabled.
The court dismissed the claim for breach of contract and negligent misstatement, finding no causal link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiffs' losses.
In this case, the court decided that the claimant must still be available for cross-examination during a hearing, even though they had physical difficulties. The court felt that the claimant's evidence was important to the legal issues being discussed.