Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ] |
Subject:  Will ring the Supreme Court tomorrow, |
|
|
Author: can't find iton anycourt list-definitely told Feb 6th |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 00:57:10 02/05/03 Wed Caselaw NSW Search Results 73 relevant decisions found by your search: "cubic" 1. Cubic Transportation Systems Inc & Anor v State of New South Wales & 2 ors [2002] NSWSC 656. Catchwords: Decision: Judgment for the defendants with costs Judgment of: Adams J at 1 Date: 26 July 2002 Legislation Cited: Transport Administration Act 1988 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qd) Coalmines Regulation Act 1982 2. EMS Quarries Pty Limited v Beaumont [2001] NSWSC 355. Catchwords: LANDLORD AND TENANT - purported termination for breach of covenants to pay royalties and to work mine - construction of royalty clause - whether failure to comply with notice demanding excessive sums for royalties amounted to repudiation - whether covenant to work mine required continuous working when uneconomic Decision: See paragaphs 29 and 30 Judgment of: Windeyer J at 1 Date: 10 May 2001 Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 s120a(3); s129 3. Symes v SP 31731 [2001] NSWSC 527. Catchwords: REAL PROPERTY - Strata and related titles - Body corporate's duty to keep common property in good and serviceable repair - Whether wall entirely within lot is common property - Whether wall on boundary between lots is common property - Whether floor tiles entirely within lot are common property - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Appeal by way of stated case - Question of law arising on stated case - Whether particular items are common property is question of law - Whether there was evidence of fact found - When determination affected by erroneous decision of law need not be remitted Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs Judgment of: Barrett J Date: 27 June 2001 Legislation Cited: Strata Titles (Freehold Development) Act 1973 Strata Schemes Management (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1996 Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 Justices Act 1902 Justices Amendment (Appeals) Act 1998 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 2) 2000 Local Government Act 1919 4. Cubic Transportation Systems Inc v State of NSW & Ors [2001] NSWSC 1195. Catchwords: Serious question to be tried - Balance of convenience - Tendering - Suggested improper influence upon Committee evaluating tenders Decision: Orders - Ref para 42 Judgment of: Kirby J Date: 21 December 2001 Legislation Cited: Transport Administration Act, 1988 5. DYNAMIC FLOORING PTY. LTD. V. CARTER & ANOR [2000] NSWSC 992. Catchwords: COSTS - NUISANCE. Discharge of water - Reasonableness of conduct - Proof of damage - Small damages and limited injunction - Desirability of neighbours seeking a solution and making reasonable concessions - One-half costs awarded to successful party. Decision: See end of judgment Judgment of: Hodgson CJinEq at 1 Date: 23 October 2000 Legislation Cited: 6. LAWROM NOMINEES PTY. LIMITED V. KINGSMEDE PTY. LTD. & ANOR [2000] NSWSC 1048. Catchwords: LANDLORD & TENANT - REAL PROPERTY - Strata and related titles and occupancy - Landlord seeks registration of strata plan - Tenant of one floor of building applies for injunction to restrain registration - Landlord offers undertakings to protect tenant from being disadvantaged - Injunction refused. Decision: See end of judgment Judgment of: Hodgson CJinEq at 1 Date: 14 October 2000 Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919, ss.117, 118. Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 ss.5, 7, 16, 18, 21, 25. Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 ss.11, 12, 13, 43, 44, 47, 49, 53, 55, 154, 245, Dictionary. 7. Brambles Holdings Limited v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61. Catchwords: Contract - Offer and acceptance - Whether letter constituted contractual offer to vary existing contract and create new contract between parties - Where language of offer ambiguous - Assessment of mutually known facts re contractual background and shared beliefs of parties - Whether conduct partially conforming to letter of offer constituted implied acceptance - Mutually understood purpose of offer - Whether response to offer was rejection of it - Whether response to offer merely constituted posturing and negotiation - Contract - Consideration - No immediate or guaranteed increase in earnings - likelihood of future increases in earnings - Contract - Construction of terms - Meaning of "General commercial refuse" - In context of agreement with local Council to operate waste depot - Meaning of "additional income" - In context of moneys required to be remitted to local Council from fees charged for receipt of liquid waste at waste depot - Remedies - Restitution - Doctrine of unjust enrichment - Discussion about controversy and debate in Australia surrounding development of doctrine and its applicability to claims in contract - D Decision: Appeal dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. Judgment of: Mason P at 1; Heydon JA at 4; Ipp AJA at 95 Date: 23 March 2001 Legislation Cited: 8. Rosser v Marine Ministerial Holding Corporation [1999] NSWCA 72. Catchwords: Contract; unaccepted repudiation; damages for breach of contract; damages in lieu of specific performance; assessment of damages; discount for vicissitudes where contract subject to contingencies; discounting generally. Decision: Appeal allowed Judgment of: Meagher JA at 1; Beazley JA at 2; Fitzgerald JA at 3 Date: 30 March 1999 Legislation Cited: 9. CGEA Transport Sydney Pty Ltd and Anor v Sydney City Council [2002] NSWLEC 54 revised - 19/06/2002. Catchwords: Appeal :- charges under s 611 of the Local Government Act 1993 - Sydney monorail - whether charges validly made - quantum of charges Decision: Judgment of: Pearlman J Date: 03/05/2002 Legislation Cited: Darling Harbour Authority Act 1984 s 23J(2) Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 18, s 20, s 22 Local Government (Rates and Charges) Regulation 1999 cl 11 Local Government Act 1993 s 532, s 535, s 611, s 729 Transport Administration Act 1988 10. Max Hams & 1 Ors v CGU Insurance Limited [2002] NSWSC 273. Catchwords: Insurance - Policies - Contract of Insurance - Indemnity under insurance policy - Damage caused by inundation of water - Whether inundation constituted a 'flood' within the terms of the policy - Policy excluded cover for 'flood' where: "Flood means inundation following the escape of water from the normal confines of any lake, reservoir, dam, river, creek or navigable canal, as the result of a natural phenomenon which has some element of violence, suddenness or largeness about it but does not mean inundation by water from fixed apparatus, fixed tanks, fixed pipes or run-off of surface water from surrounding areas" - Expert hydrological evidence - Meaning of the word 'lake' - Proximate cause - Wayne Tank principle: If a loss has two or more proximate or effective causes and at least one cause is excluded from cover, the insurer is not liable - Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) [ICA] - Proper construction of the words "clearly informed the insured in writing (whether by providing the insured with a document containing the provisions, or the relevant provisions, of the proposed contract or otherwise)" - What must an insurer do to clearly inform the insured in writing of the provisions of the insurance contract within the meaning of s 35(2) of the ICA - Whether the test is whether in all the circumstances the insurer has clearly informed the insured of the relevant provision, such that the mere provision of a document containing the relevant provisions is insufficient to discharge the insurer's obligation if the supply of that document did not of itself clearly inform the insured of his or her obligations - Whether the requirement on the insurer under s35(2) is satisfied in every case by the supply to the insured of a document containing the relevant provisions, as may be suggested by the words in parentheses immediately following the words "clearly informed the insured in writing" in s35(2) - What is the operation and effect of s 35 of the ICA in circumstances in which the damage was caused by a number of proximate causes, one of which was excluded from cover - Holding that: (1) The words in parentheses in section 35 (2) "whether by providing the insured with a document containing the provisions, or the relevant provisions, of the proposed contract or otherwise" are likely in most circumstances to result in the provision of such a document in and of itself satisfying the requirement to clearly inform - (2) There may however be special circumstances in which the complexity of or confusions within the document containing the relevant provisions (which one would expect would usually be the Insurance Policy itself) could be such that the mere provision of the Policy did not establish that the insurer had effectively informed the insured of relevant limitations Decision: The claim to indemnity with respect to the Homestead is made out. The claim to indemnity with respect to the hangar is not made out. The proper construction of section 35 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) is dealt with. The parties are granted leave to address further submissions on any claim or matter arising from the above findings which may not have been dealt with. Subject to that, short minutes are to be brought in by the plaintiffs. Judgment of: Einstein J Date: 12 April 2002 Legislation Cited: Crown Lands Act 1989 (NSW) Insurance Contracts Act 1984 Insurance Contracts Regulations 1985 Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NSW) Soil Conservation Act 1938 (NSW) South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act 1992 (SA) Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No.1) 1985 No.65 (Cth) Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1985 No. 193 (Cth) Water Conservation Act 1936 (SA) Water Resources Act 1989 (Qld) [View Next 10 Judgments] 73 relevant judgments found by your search. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| Re: Will ring the Supreme Court tomorrow, | contact details | 01:12:49 02/05/03 Wed |