10.04.2013 Views

benchmark_20-05-2008_insu... - AR Conolly and Company Lawyers

benchmark_20-05-2008_insu... - AR Conolly and Company Lawyers

benchmark_20-05-2008_insu... - AR Conolly and Company Lawyers

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Key: (I) Insurance, (B) Banking,<br />

(C) Construction<br />

- 3 -<br />

Amirbeaggi & 2 Ors v Business in Focus (Australia) Pty Ltd & 5 Ors [<strong>20</strong>08]<br />

NSWSC 421<br />

Supreme Court of New South Wales<br />

Brereton J<br />

Legal practitioners ñ costs agreements ñ whether agreement providing for<br />

how costs to be paid was a ìcosts agreementî ñ if so, whether void as barring<br />

right to costs assessment ñ whether right to costs assessment can be excluded<br />

ñ summary judgment ñ evidentiary requirements ñheld that formal<br />

requirements for summary judgment not satisfied - deed was a ìcosts<br />

agreementî & was void, as it contained provision barring costs assessment -<br />

proceedings to recover debt under deed were proceedings to recover costs &<br />

an abuse of process. Amirbeaggi (I)<br />

Morrison v Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australia) Pty Ltd [<strong>20</strong>08] QSC 093<br />

Supreme Court of Queensl<strong>and</strong><br />

McMeekin J<br />

Damages ñ personal injury - measure & remoteness of damages ñ plaintiff,<br />

seeking damages for negligence, breach of contract & breach of statutory duty<br />

against employer - slip on a mat at work - liability admitted - three aspects of<br />

damages in issue ñ pain, suffering & loss of amenities, future economic loss &<br />

future recurring expenses - plaintiffís injury an aggravation of degenerative<br />

condition ñ vulnerability - damages for loss of future earning capacity<br />

assessed on basis that plaintiff unemployable in former capacity but had<br />

gained & retained better paying employment with defendant - plaintiff would<br />

not have reached retirement age in former employment regardless of accident<br />

- judgment for plaintiff for $84,587.09. Morrison (I)<br />

L<strong>and</strong>mark Operations Ltd v J Tiver Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors [<strong>20</strong>08] SASC<br />

133<br />

Supreme Court of South Australia<br />

Sulan J<br />

Experts report ñ application to amend pleadings - plaintiff a specialist<br />

financier to agricultural industry - second to sixth defendants carried on<br />

farming business - first to fifth defendants registered proprietors of l<strong>and</strong> on<br />

which the farming business conducted - first defendant a trustee company for<br />

family trust - plaintiff & second to sixth defendants entered agreement by<br />

which plaintiff provided certain loans & credit facilities - second to sixth<br />

defendants have failed to repay the amounts owing in accordance with terms<br />

of agreement ñ plaintiff suing for damages - defendants have filed a<br />

counterclaim seeking damages for various breaches of duties - defendants<br />

have applied for leave further to amend their defence & counterclaim, & to<br />

Benchmark is prepared daily by<br />

A R <strong>Conolly</strong> & <strong>Company</strong> <strong>Lawyers</strong>, Sydney<br />

e: <strong>benchmark</strong>@arconolly.com.au<br />

t: 02 9333 3600

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!