Homepage

Appeal against leave to amend statement of claim in group proceeding

The Victorian Court of Appeal has refused an application for leave to appeal against a decision of a trial judge to allow a plaintiff to amend his statement of claim in a group proceeding. The amended pleading relates to the interpretation of section 729 of the Corporations Act 2001 (claim for loss and damage arising from misleading or deceptive statements in a disclosure document).

What happened to the Asian Century?

After great introductory fanfare, the Asian century was meant to be all things to those who traded in Asia. But have events turned out that way? This article says yes and that opportunities continue.

County Court scales up on costs – Order 63A.

Are you a County Court litigator charging scale? If so, congratulations, you just got a pay rise. Commiserations on the other hand if you a County Court litigant already rueful about rejecting a shrewd offer of compromise. Your burden just got heavier. The County Court of Victoria has amended its cost rule, Order 63A. For beneficiaries of scale costs (lawyers and successful litigants especially) this is good news.

Attempted challenge by a financial services provider to a determination by the Financial Ombudsman Service under its terms of reference

The decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in favour of the Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd (FOS) highlights the difficulties for financial services providers in trying to challenge decisions of FOS and the dispute resolution process under the terms of reference (TOR). The TOR operate as a binding contract with a finality clause in favour of FOS’ decisions and determinations.

10 years means 10 years – s. 134 of the Building Act clarified

The Victorian Court of Appeal has held that the 10 year limitation for commencing a building action in s. 134 of the Building Act 1993 (“Building Act”) is not confined to negligence claims, but also applies to actions founded in contract. The Court of Appeal also held that, on the facts of the case, no duty of care was owed by the building surveyor to the owner to prevent the type of loss suffered by the owner.

Non compliance of terms of settlement by a borrower in relation to repossession proceedings commenced by a lender

Co-authored by Kieran Hickie and Andrew Kirby. The decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in favour of the NAB highlights some difficulties that might arise between lenders and recalcitrant borrowers in relation to terms of settlement for the compromise of repossession proceedings. The Court of Appeal’s decision demonstrates that borrowers who enter terms of settlement must comply with the conditions of the terms of settlement.

A costly exercise – s 19(2) of the Patents Act

Alphapharm submitted that, although AstraZeneca had succeeded, it had no need to litigate at all because Alphapharm had made it clear that it would desist from conduct of the kind that was alleged to be in infringement of patents, until such time as the result of the appeal in Ranbaxy was known. Nevertheless AstraZeneca commenced proceedings against Alphapharm. AstraZeneca submitted that not only was it entitled to its costs in the normal course, but also that those costs should be taxed on the special basis for which section 19(2) of the Patents Act provides.