
General & Other judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
In this case, the Supreme Court of New South Wales decided to move a legal case from the District Court to the Supreme Court. They also allowed a cross-claim to be filed, finding that it was necessary for a fair and efficient resolution of the issues involved.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales denied a litigant's request for permission to appeal, ruling that the litigant's actions were considered vexatious and did not meet the criteria for a valid appeal.
In a successful lawsuit, the court decided that the losing party must cover the winning party's legal costs up to a certain date on an ordinary basis and thereafter on a more stringent basis if the losing party's defense was deemed unsuccessful.
The Court provided guidance on how charitable funds raised for volunteer firefighters affected by bushfires can be used. The funds can be used to support firefighters and their families, provide mental and physical health training, and cover course fees for skill improvement.
The court decided to award the claimant's legal costs on an indemnity basis after the defendant's Calderbank offer was rejected. The claimant achieved a better result than the offer suggested, leading to the costs being awarded on an indemnity basis.
In this case, the Supreme Court of New South Wales refused to allow a company's directors to sue the appointed a person for selling trade a person during the winding-up process. The court ruled that because the directors did not cooperate with the a person and waited years before raising their concerns, they could not now bring legal action against a person.
The court allowed a defendant to file a cross-claim against their insurer for indemnity, despite the plaintiff's objections. The defendant argued that they were entitled to coverage under an insurance policy, and the court agreed that they could pursue this claim.
In this case, the Federal Court allowed an extension of the adjournment period for a second a person' meeting beyond what was originally permitted by law. This decision aims to give administrators more time to explore options that could benefit a person, such as selling the company's remaining business or negotiating a deed of company arrangement.
The Federal Court allowed administrators more time to investigate insolvent companies before holding a a person meeting with a person. This decision helps ensure that all assets are properly assessed for maximum benefit.
The claimant successfully rescinded a contract for the sale of a residential apartment because the actual internal area of the apartment was more than 5% less than the expected area. The court ruled in favour of the claimant, returning the deposit.