The recent decision of Livesay v Hawkins [2012] QSC 122 is a timely reminder of the importance of notifying insurers of potential claims. It shows how even equivocal letters of complaint can amount to a ‘claim’ that requires notification.
A Victorian Supreme Court judge has delivered a pointed reminder about the rules on orders for recovery of legal costs in litigation.
When a commercial tenant moves out, it is not uncommon for the landlord and tenant to come to an arrangement about the outgoing tenant’s make-good obligations that takes account of the incoming tenant’s fit-out requirements. For example, the parties will often agree that, instead of restoring the premises to their original condition, the outgoing tenant can simply make a financial contribution to the incoming tenant’s fit-out.
Despite growth in the excess insurance sector, the rights of excess layer insurers are yet to be fully canvassed by Australian courts.
On 15 June 2012, the Federal Court handed down a decision on the penalty for an internet service provider’s misleading and deceptive advertising. The judgment contains a warning to other Australian businesses.
On 20 March 2012, the Federal Court reiterated the legal principles to be applied in matters involving negligent, misleading or deceptive property valuations in the decision of Propell National Valuers (WA) Pty Ltd v Australian Executor Trustees Limited [2012] FCAFC 31.
Generally, an eligible person will succeed in a challenge to a Will if they have been left without adequate provision and they can demonstrate some financial need. Provision will not usually be refused except in exceptional circumstances, such as where there are minimal assets in the estate or where there has been disentitling conduct.
In Lipman Pty Limited v. Emergency Services Superannuation Board [2010] NSWSC 710, the New South Wales Supreme Court held that an expert determination made under a construction contract was binding on the parties.
On 3 August 2010 the Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendments Bill 2010 was passed by the Queensland parliament.
CGU Insurance Limited v One.Tel Limited
Section 84 of the Property Law Act in Queensland provides that a mortgagee may not exercise the power of sale unless a notice under section 84 has been served on the mortgagor and the specified default is not remedied within 30 days from service of the notice.
In Noonan v MacLennan & Anor [2010] QCA 50 the Queensland Court of Appeal prevented defamation litigation from continuing because of a failure to comply with the strict time limits imposed by the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (LAA).