Posts by robertsheldon

Administrative law: what a medical panel knows

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – claim under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) following motor accident – assessment by medical review panel of degree of permanent impairment – application for judicial review – whether error of law on the face of the record – whether jurisdictional error – no error of law on the face of the…

Read More

A collection and application of the principles governing s. 50D of the Limitation Act, 1969

In the present case the plaintiff was injured by a collision between a road train and a bull which had not been contained on the property to which it belonged. The plaintiff believed, prior to 15 April 2014, that the reason the bull was on the road was that the second defendant had left the gate open or that it had come open. The evidence reveals that the plaintiff understood that the second defendant had admitted as much to the police and when interviewed by the ABC. His belief, which is contained in a statutory declaration made by him in support of his motor accident claim, is sufficient to establish that he knew this to be the case for the purposes of s 50D of the Act.

Read More

Reopening of entered orders

[54] Rule 36.16(3A) was introduced following the change to the procedure for the entering of orders whereby orders will be entered by the court itself on its computerised record. The rule provides a limited opportunity to ameliorate the principle that subject to only limited qualifications an order that finally disposes of proceedings, once entered, cannot…

Read More

Offers of compromise with terms not reflected in final orders

[32] The Offer of Compromise however had some 10 additional terms, examples of which are as follows: “2. The defendant’s motor vehicle third party insurer is authorised to deduct and/or pay from the judgment sum in paragraph 1 the amount of any advance payments or interim payments made for or on behalf of the plaintiff.…

Read More

The meaning and effect of granting liberty to apply

[20] Nor do I consider that, as the applicant argued, the effect of the grant of liberty to apply was to obviate the need for the applicant to file a notice of motion in accordance with r 36.16. Rather, it contemplated the possibility of an application for variation being made in accordance with the UCPR,…

Read More

Brexit explained

Prorogation must be distinguished from the dissolution of Parliament. The dissolution of Parliament brings the current Parliament to an end. Members of the House of Commons cease to be Members of Parliament. A general election is then held to elect a new House of Commons. The Government remains in office but there are conventional constraints…

Read More

Administrative law: obligation to give reasons

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of decision of Medical Review Panel – decision favourable to claimant with regard to assessment of whole person impairment – whether Panel failed adequately to engage with question of whether a particular injury was caused by a motor vehicle accident – whether the Panel failed to engage with…

Read More

Legal professional privilege: dominant versus secondary purpose

DOUGLAS v MORGAN [2019] SASCFC 76 Legal professional privilege 41 Legal professional privilege “is a rule of substantive law which may be availed of by a person to resist the giving of information or the production of documents which would reveal communications between a client and his or her lawyer made for the dominant purpose…

Read More

Appeals – orders not reasons

11. In relation to the appellant’s principal point, that he wishes to challenge the “finding” of the court below and the statutory construction underpinning it, it is axiomatic that parties are entitled to appeal from orders made and not reasons given: Driclad Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1968] HCA 91; (1968) 121 CLR 45 at 64; [1968] HCA…

Read More

Intentional acts under the Civil Liability Act

Section 3B of the Civil Liability Act only excludes the operation of the Act where the conduct that is the subject of proceedings was intentional, and done with intent to cause injury; the Act is not excluded merely because the proceedings relate to an intentional tort: [8], [51], [169]. [8] As this Court has noted on a number…

Read More