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
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