
General & Other judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Federal Court allowed the respondents to file an amended defence and a cross-claim against new parties, recognising the significance of these amendments to the case. The decision was made despite the risk of losing scheduled hearing dates.
A court allowed a a person more time to sue specific individuals involved in transactions that may have harmed the company's financial health during its winding up process. This decision was based on the fairness of extending the deadline considering all relevant factors.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales rejected a request to extend a caveat over a property. The court found that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove a serious case for maintaining the caveat.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed the plaintiff's summons because it did not show a reasonable cause of action. This decision was based on the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.
The NSW Supreme Court decided that the claimant must pay the respondent's costs related to a motion seeking the striking out of an amended statement of claim. The decision was based on the claimant's failure to address a concern about the verification of the pleading.
In this case, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an attempt by one party to obtain draft a person reports and communications between the a person and their lawyers. The court ruled that the request came too late in the trial process and did not meet the necessary criteria for waiving legal privilege.
In this Supreme Court case, the plaintiffs were trying to reclaim their parents' accommodation bonds as a matter of principle but lost the case. After rejecting a settlement offer (Calderbank letter), they had to pay the a person' legal costs on an indemnity basis from the date the offer expired.
In this case, the Federal Court denied the claimant's request for an extension to file a notice of appeal after they lost important court documents. The judge ruled that the claimant did not comply with earlier orders and had enough time to prepare the necessary documentation.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by borrowers who claimed their signatures on loan documents were forged and that they were misled by a broker. The Court upheld the primary judge's decision to grant possession of the property to the lender, ruling that the borrowers' allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were not sufficient to overturn the lender's right to possession.